Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call debate on the budget.

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to continue making some remarks about the budget that the government tabled yesterday. As designated speaker, I don’t plan to take hours to continue this discussion. I know there are lots of people….

Interjections.

S. Bond: I really appreciate my colleagues’ enthusiasm across the way. Not so much on my own side. Did you hear that?

I want to begin again. We’re going to take a little bit of time to reflect on what was announced yesterday and, probably more importantly in many ways, what was not captured in the budget.

This is the time in the Legislature where people have the opportunity to stand up and express their views. There will be very different views about the budget that’s been presented for British Columbians. We have very strong views about the approach that was taken, and I’m sure the members opposite will stand up in large numbers to support and defend their budget. That’s what one would expect.

I wanted to, on a more personal note, mention again my appreciation to the minister. I think one of the things that I’m always surprised about in this Legislature is that no matter how long you’ve been here, you often don’t really know very much about each other.

I appreciated the Minister of Finance and how she characterized her speech remarks. She talked about her family. She talked about the kinds of values that shape and drive the decision-making that she has. All of us bring with us those values that shape the thinking we do.

The minister reflected on the fact that she’s a mother and a grandmother. So am I, and I can tell you, when I look at the speech and the budget that’s been tabled, that while we’re looking at exactly the same document, we come away with very different feelings and impressions about what that means for the future of British Columbia. I think that’s an important part of what we do in this place. I do, however, recognize that those values result in differences in opinion. Budget 2020 is a very good example of an approach that we have very significant concerns about.

As I noted yesterday, British Columbians need to be asking themselves a pretty critical question. This is a government that’s talked, consistently and regularly, about affordability. I don’t think there’s an elected official in this House that doesn’t think that British Columbia needs to be more affordable for families.

As I said yesterday and today, most people have no idea that a budget has been tabled in this province. But it’s going to have implications for them. Most people are just trying to take care of their family, just trying to find a way to make things a little bit easier. I think we owe it to British Columbians to actually take a hard look at the budget.

I know that at times it gets uncomfortable in this place, but let’s be clear. Our job is to look with a critical eye at what has been presented to British Columbians and to ask some hard questions. That’s what we’re going to do. Not just today and in the days of debate that lie ahead, every critic is going to ask ministers of the Crown exactly what they intend to be doing in their ministries. A little bit later, I’ll go through a bit of a list.

One of the untold parts of the story that the Minister of Finance left out of her discussion yesterday was that there are ministries, and a large number of them, that have had their budgets cut or frozen.

[2:35 p.m.]

We heard about the big spending plans — and there is some big spending going on — but we didn’t hear about the ministries that, in fact, will have their budgets cut or frozen. I think British Columbians need to know that side of the story as well.

Yesterday the minister laid out the story of how this budget is going to help families, help British Columbians. Let me share the story of one British Columbian who responded almost immediately after the budget was tabled yesterday. I’ll tell you this: I don’t know this British Columbian, but I was pretty compelled by her story.

It was a story that CBC News told. I quote from that article, because I think it’s time we had an honest conversation about the whole affordability agenda of this government. Here’s what the article says: “While government MLAs clapped and thumped their desks in Victoria during the budget speech Tuesday, many facing affordability challenges said there was little to cheer about.”

We didn’t hear any reference to the fact that there was little to cheer about. Here’s what one New Westminster mother said: “For our personal expenses, I don’t see a huge difference for our family.” Child care and strata fees take a big bite out of this mom’s bank account. She said: “Life is becoming less affordable.”

I don’t know her. I don’t know her name. I don’t know — she lives in New Westminster — but here’s what she said. This is exactly why detailed questions are important, because this government has had lots to say about child care. You know what? Perhaps they should go and talk to some of those families that it’s impacting on the ground.

Here’s one. This mom, who’s 37 years old, lives in New Westminster and says that life is becoming less affordable. Here’s why. Last year the daycare that this mom’s three-year-old daughter attends “qualified for provincial funding that reduced fees by almost 10 percent.” Now, I’m sure members opposite would be celebrating this story to that point, but the story goes on: “But this year the daycare is upping its fees by 15 percent, meaning that we’re going to be paying about $1,000 a month. So that’s more expensive.”

Pretty straight mathematics. I use the story only to illustrate the point of standing in the Legislature day after day — whether you’re in the House or outside — and talking about affordability for all British Columbians when, in fact, for many British Columbians, that is simply not true.

She also goes on to say that she’s very disappointed that there’s “no relief for strata homeowners in the budget. with news of big hikes to insurance.” In this mom’s building, the price of insurance has nearly tripled. That means her strata fees are going to go up $100 a month.

Yesterday when we listened to the Finance Minister deliver her budget, there was not a single word — not a mention — about the crisis related to strata in British Columbia. Not a word. The article goes on to say that this mom is not alone. Here’s another quote: “Critics say many ordinary families trying to keep their heads above water won’t get much help from this budget.”

Members opposite may want to dismiss my words, and they often do. This is a mom trying to figure out how she’s going to pay for her strata increases and trying to figure out how the child care plan that was promised by this government has disappeared. They can argue and try to capture it however they want. I’ll talk, in just a couple of minutes, about child care.

Perhaps the biggest concern I have….

[2:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record today. Yesterday, in my initial response to the budget, I said that there were 23 new and increased taxes; there are actually 24. I want to make sure that the record is correct, because I was amazed that from the time it took me to leave the Legislature after my original remarks to get to my office, guess what. They discovered a new tax, one that was just one of those little sneaky ones. You see, I was actually quite surprised when I discovered the Netflix tax. Who knew? Who knew that in British Columbia, British Columbians who enjoy using Netflix are going to face the PST?

I definitely want to correct the record. What this government has done since it has been sitting on that side of the House, about 2½ years or more now…. They’ve increased or introduced 24 new taxes. Yesterday we didn’t even hear about all of those taxes in the Finance Minister’s comments. So let’s take a look at two of the taxes that…. You know, they’re just those little ones that get tucked in the budget.

Let’s talk a little bit about the tax that’s been fondly dubbed the Netflix tax. I can assure you…. I know that my colleagues on this side of the House are hearing about it. I can virtually guarantee you that members on that side of the House are going to hear about it. We look forward to a bit more clarity about this tax during the estimates debate, but as we understand it, a 7 percent PST will come into effect on July 1, 2020, for a wide range of online media services. So to be fair, it’s not just about Netflix. I don’t know about you, but certainly, as a grandma, I know that Disney+ gets a lot of viewing in our house.

Let’s just look at some of the services, the video platforms, that might be included: Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Apple TV, Crave TV, YouTube Premium. Oh, and we didn’t stop there. They didn’t stop there. It includes music platforms as well, like Spotify and Google Music. So while I was busy with my colleagues sorting out the 23 new and increased taxes, there are actually 24.

I really look forward to the minister explaining her expectations related to the other new tax that will be applied to all British Columbians. It was called the carbonated sugary beverages tax. It’s not a new concept. It’s been discussed and debated in British Columbia for a long time. The most important question should be the efficacy of a tax. Does it work? I look forward to the minister providing us with whatever best information she has that would demonstrate that this tax is going to actually make a difference other than taxing carbonated sugary beverages to gain revenue to balance this minister’s budget.

Let’s look at the definition of the now fondly dubbed pop tax. Let’s just see what that covers. Well, as we understand it, PST at a rate of 7 percent will be expanded to include all carbonated beverages that contain sugar, natural sweeteners or artificial sweeteners. It applies to soda drinks in both can and bottle form — including those purchased in stores, kiosks, cafés, restaurants and vending machines — as well as soda drinks in dispensable forms, such as soda fountains and soda guns. Think about those small mom-and-pop organizations suddenly faced with another tax.

Today we’re not going to debate the merit of the health impacts of the tax. We’ll wait to hear from the minister about what kind of homework she did before looking at the revenue side of this equation. But let’s be clear about one thing. The reason I raised those two taxes…. First of all, we need British Columbians to recognize that the total number of taxes in 2½ years that are impacting British Columbia’s families and businesses is 24 new or increased taxes. That has a significant impact on the economy of this province.

[2:45 p.m.]

Despite the lack of any credible economic strategy that deals with growth in this province, this government continues to rely on the back pockets of hard-working British Columbians to raise revenue. We should be clear that this government would have zero as a surplus if it were not for the new taxes they’ve introduced. Let’s think about that for a moment. Lots of clapping and desk thumping about a balanced budget.

Interjection.

S. Bond: Well, thank you very much to the minister. I look forward to her explaining to British Columbians how that budget…. Let’s be clear, four new taxes required to balance the budget. Without that tax revenue, zero balanced budget. Let’s take a look at that, just so…. Maybe the members and the minister opposite haven’t had a chance to delve into the tax budget revenue page. But let’s be clear.

Interjection.

S. Bond: Oh, it’s nice to hear the member speak up on something over there. Good for him.

Interjections.

S. Bond: Lower taxes? Wow.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: I look forward to the member’s speech.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: Obviously, he hasn’t looked up the revenue generation page.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have one speech at a time, please.

S. Bond: Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s be clear. Together, the taxes introduced in this budget raise $850 million over three years. Now, the member…. I would challenge him to go and add up the surpluses for the next three years. Isn’t it incredible that the taxes that this government introduced yesterday actually result in the surpluses that they’re adding up over three years?

The minister may want to thump her desk all she wants. It’s $850 million in additional taxes over the next three years in order to balance this budget. The government is projecting cumulative surpluses during that period of time of $780 million. Figure that out. They’re going to have surpluses that add up to $780 million, and they’re collecting new tax revenue to the total of $850 million.

Just do the math, and then ask yourself how British Columbians can possibly be better off when at every turn, they’re being taxed. Whether it’s their Netflix account, their Disney account, whether it’s the carbonated beverage they’re going to have, whether it’s through the employer health tax, the taxes just keep on coming. That is the only way that there is a surplus that this government is touting over the next number of years.

Yesterday we walked through some of the challenges that British Columbia is facing as a result of the budget that’s been tabled. We know that by 2022, total taxation in British Columbia will have increased by almost $4,700 per household at the same time that this government continues to talk about affordability.

The challenge we face is that there would be no need for those taxes if government spending wasn’t basically out of control. This government would rather rely on the pockets of British Columbians to make ends meet. Let’s listen to what MSP Task Force chair…. Let’s just walk back in time for a moment here. Dr. Lindsay Tedds was actually chosen by this government to lead the MSP Task Force that was going to look for all of that lost revenue when they got rid of the MSP premiums in British Columbia. What they did, of course, was transfer it to a new tax called the employer health tax.

Dr. Tedds and her team actually laid out a plan for government. Do you know what government did? When she came to government with an interim report and said: “You know what? You’ve got to do some things. But I advise you not to do it this way….”

[2:50 p.m.]

I think you know what’s coming. Do you know what the government did? They did it in precisely the way that their handpicked chair said not to do it: “Most importantly, don’t double-dip. Make sure there’s some transition time. Take care of small business owners in British Columbia.” They ignored that.

Let’s hear what Dr. Tedds said yesterday about the financial decisions of this government. And let’s be clear: I don’t know who Dr. Lindsay Tedds is. But apparently, the government did, because they handpicked this person to be the chair of their MSP revenue replacement task force. Here’s her quote: “It is a lazy Finance Minister that first raises taxes as opposed to making sure that the leaky budget is plugged first. There are many ways B.C. could plug the leaky bucket.” No ally of ours. Not my words. Their very own handpicked MSP Task Force chair.

What did the government do when they were looking for more revenue? Just as Dr. Tedds pointed out, the first choice they made was to dig into your pocket, British Columbians’ pockets: “Let’s add some more taxes.” We’re up to 24. We were 19 before this budget was increased. We’re up to 24 new or increased taxes.

The really sad part, when you think about what’s happened, when you think about the massive increase of taxation revenue…. The ministers can sit, and the members across the aisle can go and look up the numbers. It is billions of dollars of taxation revenue every single year — $5.8 billion a year — and that’s going up. Spending is going through the roof as well.

You know what’s really disappointing about it all? It actually has provided precious little gain for average British Columbians. You heard that from the mother in the article at the beginning of my discussion. She said: “You know what? There was a little bit of benefit in my child care last year. But guess what. It’s disappearing, and the costs are going up. My strata insurance is going up. The budget has very little benefit for me and my family.” But no recognition, none whatsoever, from the members on the opposite side about that.

The question British Columbians are asking themselves today, before and after this budget discussion, and that they should ask themselves: “Am I better off as a result of Budget 2020 or not?” We know the answer. The answer is short. It’s no.

Let’s talk about one of the reasons why. A telltale indicator of the health of an economy is business — small businesses, medium-sized enterprises — and how they struggle to get by. One of the things that we heard loud and clear after yesterday’s budget was tabled was the fact that British Columbia is facing some pretty challenging times. The global economy is softening. We’re starting to see issues develop in terms of business confidence as taxes are increased and profits decrease.

Real business investment in British Columbia is down. It’s down from 10.5 to 4.1 percent. Retail sales are barely holding their own, even with population growth. So we see business investment dropping. Retail sales are flatlined. And we watch as countless small businesses across the province struggle with increasing property taxes. But this government has taken zero action to remedy that situation.

[2:55 p.m.]

Let’s look at some of the things they could and should be working on. Split assessment would be a considerable help to thousands of small businesses, but this government would rather increase taxes than give vital small businesses much-needed relief. We watched as the businesses struggled. The time frame that was dubbed “double-dip year”…. As much as the members opposite want to celebrate the fact that they transferred a tax…. Yes, the words “MSP premiums” are gone, but they’ve been transferred to another tax: the employer health tax.

To think or suggest for a moment that those taxes don’t impact British Columbians…. The letters “MSP” may not be attached to those challenges, but believe you me, when a small business gets hit with an additional tax, how do you think they cover those costs? Well, there are a number of ways, and we’re seeing it all across the province. They either lay off staff or they increase costs to consumers. So in the end of the day, there will be a cost to taxpayers, and there’s no recognition of that. There’s no sense that the taxes, the 23 new and increased taxes, are going to have a direct impact on British Columbians.

I think one of the biggest concerns that we have is the fact that the NDP are failing to grow business confidence in British Columbia. As I spoke earlier, I talked about how we may share some of the same values. We want to care for vulnerable British Columbians, and we want to make sure that we have top-quality education. All of those things are important. The question is: who’s going to pay for them, and how?

Where we differ with this government is that we actually recognize that you have to grow and strengthen the economy. You can’t simply rely on the 23 new and increased taxes. In my enthusiasm, I gave the government 24. It’s 23 new and increased taxes; four in this budget. But to suggest that that isn’t going to make a difference in British Columbia is a significant problem.

Yesterday we heard from job creators in this province. Yesterday’s news release from the B.C. Business Council…. I think everyone in this House has a great deal of respect for Jock Finlayson. Here’s what he had to say. He is the chief policy officer for the B.C. Business Council, and here’s what he said, “Since 2013, the B.C. government has added more than $5 billion in incremental tax costs on B.C. businesses” — $5 billion. He goes on to say: “These trends make it harder to do business and to scale up our companies. The government has much more work to do if it wants B.C. to remain an attractive place for investment, entrepreneurial ambition and top talent.”

Well, I think the members opposite need to take a moment and actually think very seriously and carefully about those words. Let me say them again. Let me read this part again. “The government has much more work to do if it wants B.C. to remain an attractive place for investment, entrepreneurial ambition and top talent.”

Why does that matter? It matters because you need to grow the economy. You need to grow the revenue-generation side of the books. There was none of that in this budget. Here’s what there was: “Let’s tax more, and let’s spend more.” In the end of the day, the people who are going to be paying for that are British Columbians, hard-working individuals and families who are just trying to get through the day and make life a little bit easier.

You can’t ignore the revenue-generation side in a budget. That’s exactly what happened yesterday, and it happened last year. It’s not radical thinking. It’s not overly critical of the government. It’s just the facts. This government, the current one, has a history. It’s a pattern. They believe in tax and spend.

[3:00 p.m.]

We believe that you need to support small businesses and medium-size enterprises in British Columbia, that you need to have a competitive tax regime, that you need to be a place where investors want to come and that you certainly cannot be an island of your own when it comes to competitiveness.

Yes, we’ll grant the government the fact that the word competitiveness was in their budget. But guess what. There was nothing to back it up — no action, no plan, no recognition that British Columbia cannot continue on this course, which is tax and spend without a recognition that we need to be paying attention to the loss of B.C.’s competitive edge. There is damage being done, and this government needs to stand up and take some responsibility for it.

We should actually take a look at some of the quotes from job creators. These are people who create jobs in British Columbia, who help to grow and strengthen an economy. Let’s hear from a few of them.

Greg D’Avignon from the B.C. Business Council said: “The budget is virtually silent on the agenda, let alone the implementation of a sustainable economic plan.” One would think that’s probably a pretty core fundamental part of anyone’s budget. He goes on to say: “We needed a budget that recognizes the province is operating in an increasingly competitive and uncertain global economy, and we must up our game on productivity. The budget falls short.”

Jock Finlayson goes on to say, “The budget does not pay sufficient attention to the storm clouds facing us due to slower global growth and escalating tax and regulatory costs at home,” and then: “The budget fails to address the eroding competitiveness of some of B.C.’s largest export industries due to the design of the province’s carbon pricing regime, rising property taxes, the PST system and previous increases in the corporate income tax rate.” The list goes on.

There is significant concern in the province of British Columbia about this government’s ability to continue to attract investment and to grow the economy in a sustainable and strong way. But it doesn’t seem to matter, because we’ll just tax and we’ll spend.

We do need to spend a couple of minutes talking about the whole premise of this government’s time in office, and that’s about the issue of affordability. We all care that British Columbians have the best opportunities that they can for their families. We want them to live in a province that’s affordable, allowing people to consider purchasing a home or those important things that they make tough decisions about.

Let’s take a look at what’s happening in our province right now. Gas prices — among the highest in the country. Netflix taxes. Pop taxes. When you think about…. We might all smile when we think about a streaming tax on streaming services, but the government is going to take in $11 million as a result of that sneaky little tax. Sugary carbonated drinks — we look forward to hearing more definition about what that means — will bring in $27 million.

I know government members recognize that that applies to all British Columbians. So while we’re busy talking about affordability, we’re ramping up taxes on people’s ability to watch the Disney Channel and to drink a carbonated beverage in British Columbia. These kinds of taxes are a far cry from making life more affordable.

We need to raise the issue, as well, of the creation of a new tax bracket. I know we’re going to hear lots of comments on the other side of the House about the top 1 percent and all those rich folks. There is also an important consideration to be made. When we’re talking about the tech sector, as a perfect example, and other places where we want to attract exceptional professionals to British Columbia, I can assure you that one of the first things they look at is the tax regime in the province they’re being recruited to.

[3:05 p.m.]

The more we layer it on, the more difficult it is going to be to attract the kinds of professionals we need to have a strong, growing, innovative and creative economy. We’ll look forward to having a discussion with the minister about that, but we should be clear. This tax rate will now be 20.5 percent if you earn above $220,000 a year. The previous rate was 16.8 percent. This alone will add $216 million in tax revenue.

Let’s just make the point one more time. When you look at the new tax bracket, you look at the pop tax and you look at the Netflix tax, guess what the number adds up to. The surplus. So to suggest that this is balanced on anything but the backs of hard-working British Columbians is inaccurate.

Let’s talk a little bit about one of the foundational pieces of this government’s plan for affordability, and that’s child care. I am the first to admit it’s a complex file. It’s hard. You have to figure out: how do you provide support to families? How you do that in a way that encourages and supports families who, perhaps, want two parents or need two parents in the workforce? How do you find ways that meet options — families who have shift work and need care in the morning and late at night?

It’s expensive. It’s hard. But make no mistake about it. This government was incredibly clear with British Columbians in 2017. There was no mistaking the promise that was made by this government. Today we’re going to hear all kinds of things about how we’re still on track and all of those kinds of things. We know that is not the case. The budget simply does not allow for that promise to be met.

Let’s be clear. What did this government tell British Columbians in 2017? They told them that there would be a $10-a-day child care program for whoever needed it and wanted it. Well, if anyone listened to the throne speech, that promise was significantly walked back, because the words that were missing were “whoever wanted it.”

From my perspective, when you’re talking about a universal $10-a-day daycare program, that means everyone. That is not what this government is now delivering, and the budget backs it up. Don’t take my word for it or our exceptionally good critic’s, who manages the data and the file. Look at the budget.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Here’s what we know. They have abandoned their prom­ise for $10-a-day child care. They are very far behind on the promised spaces. Let’s look at what the budget tells us. Six years into what was purportedly going to be a ten-year program, there will only be one-third of the funding in place to accomplish the promise they made to British Columbians.

I can be very candid about this. Before the election in 2017, we talked to lots of young families who live in northern and rural communities. One of the things they said repeatedly was: “We like that promise. We like that we’re going to have $10-a-day child care. We like the fact that everyone will be able to take advantage of it.” Well, guess what. That program is no longer the program that this government promised. It is one big signature broken promise.

You know, families have every right to feel let down. This government, this Premier, made a promise, and they’ve abandoned a universal $10-a-day daycare program for all parents who need or want it. As I said, the throne speech backed away from universal child care, saying subsidies for child care will be based on need rather than need or want.

[3:10 p.m.]

Do you know what’s even more challenging? Right now the $10-a-day daycare program is a pilot program. It’s a temporary program. I don’t know if the members opposite have gone and actually talked to families. It was like winning a lottery if you got to be in one of those programs.

We experienced it in Prince George. Two families who live next door to each other — both of them with young children, both of them excited about the possibility of $10-a-day daycare. Well, guess what happened. One of those families…. Their children went to the pilot site for $10-a-day daycare. They got the $10-a-day child care benefit. The other family didn’t. So big promise in the window. Big promise to British Columbians. Big promise to families. Then what? Well, let’s pick winners and losers across British Columbia. Let’s pick some families, a few spaces here and there.

Now what we see in this budget is that there is absolutely zero intention and, more importantly, there are no dollars in place to deliver on a program that this government stood before the people of British Columbia in 2017 and promised that they would be able to benefit from. Families have every right to feel let down, and they’re not the only ones.

This government also promised a renters rebate. Now, I don’t know about you. Maybe you haven’t done the Google search yet through the budget document. There is no renters rebate. Disappeared. Do you know what — I heard the rationale from the minister the other day — one of them was? The Green Party wasn’t comfortable with it. They didn’t like it. Well, I want the members opposite to know that maybe the Green Party members didn’t like it, but British Columbia’s renters certainly liked it. And guess what. Just like $10-a-day daycare, it’s gone. No promise to deliver that now or in the future.

We continue to go through the budget, as we look at the impact of what the numbers on the pages mean for British Columbians.

Let’s talk about infrastructure projects. Budget 2020 fails to give any assurance that important and necessary infrastructure projects will actually be completed. Over $1 billion in infrastructure projects that were announced in 2019 have now been delayed. The budget is missing funding for important projects that are needed to clear congestion. There is no money for the George Massey replacement project.

The throne speech went out of its way to dangle the prospect of commuter rail for the Fraser Valley. Yet guess what. No money in the budget. No money set aside. But it’s not just commuter rail that has been given no funding. There are no meaningful plans for improving or expanding transit in other areas of the province, including Vancouver and Surrey. So where are the Surrey MLAs? Oh, nothing.

Let’s hear what Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart…. Now, I can imagine that the ears will be perking up on the other side of the House. I can assure you that I’m sure Mayor Kennedy Stewart is more closely aligned with that side of the House than with this one.

Let’s hear what he had to say yesterday after the budget. Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart commented on the failure to address transit to UBC, saying: “Until we see a signal from the government of B.C. that they intend to connect UBC to the rest of the region, congestion and long travel times along the second-largest business and innovation corridor in the province will continue to be unresolved.” Vancouver — no mention. Improvements to this and other transit corridors would make a big difference in the rapidly growing Lower Mainland.

Let’s talk about another important promise that this government made. Let’s talk about housing. Because if you’re going to talk about affordability, you actually need to have a thoughtful analysis of child care and housing and transportation and taxation.

[3:15 p.m.]

Take a look at all of those things in totality. We’ve seen that the promise around $10-a-day child care has morphed, and it is no longer what this government promised. We’ve seen the $400 renters rebate disappear.

Let’s talk about housing. The NDP are so far behind on their housing promises. Here’s what we know. Only 2,400 units were actually opened by this government as of its own latest housing report. So before the catcalls start and the criticism, it’s their own report that points out that only 2,400 units were actually opened by this government.

We continue to see a target, and it’s a lofty one: 114,000 new housing units. It’s done absolutely nothing about the pace at which the housing is being built. You can promise all you want, 114,000 units. At the rate this government is going, it will take more than a hundred years for the government to reach its targets — at the current rate.

Not only that…. This is a serious issue. We hear lots about the housing plan and the strategies and the reports. Well, guess what the budget tells us. Go to the document. Look it up. Housing starts are going down. Not just this year — a whopping 22 percent. They continue to go down in the next two years. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that if you don’t have more supply, if you don’t have more housing being built, guess what happens. The price of available housing goes up. So much for the affordability argument.

There are no plans and no measures being put in place to deal with the issue of how quickly that supply will take place. In fact, it is a missing element of the housing strategy. You have to unleash the private sector. You have to look at how you are going to increase supply in the market if you’re going to deal with the issue of affordability. We heard concerns yesterday being expressed about the lack of housing affordability, about the fact that this government has done very little to actually deal with those significant issues. In fact, until there’s a serious approach to looking at the issue of supply, nothing is going to change.

Yesterday we looked. There’s no mention of measures being considered or discussed to deal with the growing crisis in strata insurance. This issue will have impacts, serious implications, for thousands of British Columbians. Yet what do we hear from this government? “That’s an affordability issue.” You heard that from the mother that I talked about at the beginning of my remarks. Her strata insurance is going to cost her an additional $100 a month at the same time that her child care costs are going up.

We saw yesterday that one of the things that seems to have taken a lesser profile for this government, certainly one they talked about an awful lot, is related to the environment, and stakeholders are starting to take notice. Yesterday, a quote from BCBC. I hope that members opposite will listen and share this with the minister. It’s pretty discouraging.

“For more than a year, we have been working with the province to fashion a CleanBC plan that both reduces emissions and keeps our natural resource, manufacturing and transportation industries competitive. Unfortunately, Budget 2020 falls short of what we were expecting. Many of B.C.’s biggest export products and commodities have half the carbon intensity of competing jurisdictions, but these industries — vital to middle-class jobs in rural and urban regions — are now operating at a unique global and North American competitive disadvantage. Regrettably, our collaboration with the province on this important file appears to have hit a wall.”

[3:20 p.m.]

After working in good faith for more than a year, suddenly they read the budget and realize that all that effort has been, basically, ignored. So for a file that was once so celebrated by this government, it’s odd to see it secondary to so many other issues.

As we look at the rest of the budget, we hear comments from the mining sector, from all of the many resource sectors across British Columbia. We heard it on the lawn yesterday, as hundreds of families and individuals came from a long distance to express their view to British Columbians. But what we see is a decided lack of support for mining, resource industries in this province. There is nothing for them in the budget.

Let’s see what the Mining Association had to say. “We’re very disappointed,” said Michael Goehring, president of the Mining Association of B.C. in an interview. “The mining industry is at a crossroads in B.C., and we were hoping to see a solution in this budget.” However, I would argue that a lot of industries feel forgotten, probably none more significantly than the forest industry in British Columbia.

It was very hard to stand back and watch as the crisis unfolded in rural and northern communities in particular, but communities on Vancouver Island and elsewhere, when workers and companies and communities asked this government for help. It took months of curtailments and closures and families who were in stressful situations, communities that didn’t know what to do. The NDP failed to provide a struggling industry the assistance that they needed. Unfortunately, this budget is just more of the same.

Of the $13 million that is going toward forestry, supposedly, in this budget — I know our critic and my colleagues will certainly delve into this further — all of the money is previously allocated. There is nothing — no new money, no new funding, no new help. For a sector that, for generations, has been part of the core industries in this province — nothing. The amount that’s included and the approach will do little to nothing to help those communities.

As noted yesterday in my remarks, there is no mention of the rural dividend fund. Maybe if the members don’t live in a rural community or see the benefits, they don’t understand, necessarily, the impact of what that decision made. When you’re talking about billions of dollars, maybe that amount doesn’t seem significant. But I can tell you as an MLA that saw, on the ground, firsthand — and I’m surrounded by many of my colleagues who saw those benefits — that it made the difference between starting a program and keeping a job. It gave communities hope. It gave them a chance to be creative and thoughtful with just such a small amount of money.

What happened? That money was ripped out of the rural dividend fund to fulfil some other funding announcement that this government made, and it’s just not right. We even tried Google search.

There was a commitment made to restore that program, and I can assure you that we’re going to hold the government accountable. That program made a difference every day on the ground in northern and rural communities. This government needs to honour its pledge to put it back.

When we look at the budget, forestry revenue has fallen nearly 40 percent since 2018. It should be so obvious to this government that forestry is an industry that needs a comprehensive recovery plan. But instead, hard hit communities are given nothing more than lip service. It’s just not right.

[3:25 p.m.]

From my perspective, when you look at the budget numbers, when you look at the fact…. And I will look forward to an explanation, because as I said earlier, the minister didn’t talk about the ministries that were cut or frozen. I’m sure there will be a lot of discussion about this.

Guess what one of the ministries is on the cut list. Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is on the ministry hit list. Not to mention most of the other job-creating ministries — all of them are on the cut or the frozen list.

So let’s spend. Let’s tax British Columbians, but let’s cut the very ministries. Let’s see a reduction in Agriculture; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; FLNRO. Here’s an interesting one: Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I looked long and hard with my colleagues to find the monetary support for the processes related to UNDRIP. Guess what — none. Not that we can find. We’ll look forward to the debate. Happy to be corrected.

Guess which other ministries are being cut: Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness. We’ve just heard from job creators in British Columbia that one of the most significant issues impacting British Columbia is that we are becoming an island that lacks competitiveness. Lots going on south of the border. But one of the things they are concentrating on is creating a competitive tax environment, a focus on competitiveness.

Guess what’s happening next door to us as we go to the east. They’re starting to look at how they can become more competitive. Why does that matter? It’s so you can attract investment and create good-paying private sector jobs. You know what. Zero attention is being paid to that. Absolutely zero.

This is a government that likes to talk about: “We’re going to transition to a technology-based economy or a knowledge-based economy.” Well, I would think that innovation and technology are a pretty key part of that. So why don’t we look at what the B.C. Tech Association had to say about the budget? One would assume that if you’re moving away or looking at a decline in the natural resource sector side of the budget, and you’re talking about innovation and technology, there would be significant support in the budget for the technology sector.

Well, let’s just take a look at what the B.C. Tech Association said on February 18, 2020: “Budget 2020 included no new spending for technology and innovation.” So let’s get this straight. We see little support, if any, for the natural resource sector, but there’s no new spending for technology and innovation either. Exactly how do we expect to grow the economy of British Columbia?

Let’s go on to see what else they said.

“On the surface, it may appear that all is well in B.C.’s tech sector, but a closer look at the data”— the homework, all of the work that should be done — “reveals our twin challenges. Other tech sectors in places such as Ontario, Colorado and Washington state are now growing tech GDP faster than B.C. And B.C. Tech’s analysis of Stats Canada business count data shows little to no growth in the number of scaled-up technology companies with 200-plus employees, the size needed to anchor sustainable companies that provide good jobs to thousands” — and get this part — “and tax revenues for government.”

Think about it. There’s another way this government could have looked at actually generating tax revenue: by encouraging and supporting innovation and creativity and the tech sector. Even the tech sector could find very little good to say about the budget yesterday.

Let’s talk about the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. What did they have to say? Here’s another quote from the CEO. “There was nothing here to make our region a more competitive region.” Given the cumulative tax increases, the business community is feeling thoroughly tapped out.

[3:30 p.m.]

Overall, the budget offered little in the way of providing a vision for job creation and regional competitiveness. There was little to no mention of the contributions small and large businesses make to support everyday working families and revenues contributing to social programs.

When we look at the premise…. When we look at the major tenets of a budget that this government has provided, it’s pretty straightforward. There’s one revenue source, and it appears to be hard-working British Columbians and taxes — 23 new and increased taxes.

Businesses in British Columbia are feeling tapped out. They are feeling that they are losing their competitive edge, yet this budget provided absolutely nothing in terms of any sort of assistance, support, even mention. As we consider what the budget said yesterday to British Colum­bians…. I certainly recognize that people in this House bring different views and different values, but what we care about is making sure that British Columbia has a strong, growing, thriving economy.

We care that, yes, British Columbians have every opportunity. And what we saw yesterday were squandered opportunities, lost opportunities. We saw tax and spend. We saw very little recognition that this government understands that in order to continue to pay for those important programs, you have to grow a strong, thriving economy in this province.

I know that as we work our way through the comments of members throughout the Legislature, we’ll hear…. And very shortly, we’ll actually hear from the members of the Third Party. I want you to know that I listened carefully to their comments, because of the dynamics in this legislature as we speak. The coalition partners of the government actually said that the throne speech was underwhelming and backward-looking.

I will be incredibly interested to hear what the interim leader of the Green Party will have to say, because yesterday they actually had some interesting things to say. Here’s what they said: “I don’t see how there is a strategy here” — this is related to the budget — “for getting us where we need to get to.” In another quote, the House Leader: “This really is the job of governments. It’s the role of government to look ahead and say, ‘Where do we want to be in ten, 50 and 100 years from now?’” This budget feels like: “Where do we want to be a year from now?” And that’s not good enough in the world that we’re in today.

Here’s what the interim leader said: “We absolutely have to take appropriate steps in building a sustainable, resilient economy for the future, and that’s not what I saw in this budget.” Once again, from the House Leader. This is a really interesting quote: “It’s time to make smarter, more courageous choices for the future of B.C. We’re here to offer those choices up.”

British Columbians are going to be watching the choices that the leader of the Green Party offers up, because there’s one choice that’s pretty clear. The leader of the Green Party can continue to stand in the House and outside of the House and be critical of the throne speech and critical of the budget speech. Let’s talk about courageous decisions.

Time will tell, because this is a Green Party that, to date, has chosen to support their coalition partners on virtually every single issue that’s been brought to this House. Yet when it comes to the validity and the credibility of this budget, let’s just see how courageous the interim leader of the Green Party is. It’s one thing to criticize a budget; it’s another thing to demonstrate some action to British Columbians.

[3:35 p.m.]

If this leader doesn’t believe this budget has merit and doesn’t result in a sustainable, resilient economy, then I know there’s one thing for sure that they should consider doing, and that is vote against the budget. That would be a courageous decision. But I have every reason to believe that that won’t happen. It’s very easy to stand up and make the YouTube video and criticize the budget.

Let’s be clear. Let’s talk about courageous steps that the government could take. I think there’s an important and compelling reason that there are some other courageous steps that could be taken.

We look at a budget plan. It basically has three years of taxation and spending. We know that British Columbia is facing a global economy that is softening. The other thing that concerns us deeply is the fact that all of the measures that demonstrate the strength of an economy are heading in the wrong direction.

We look at employment numbers. Do you know that over the last eight months, more than 34,000 jobs have been lost in this province — 34,000? More than that over the last eight months alone.

We see retail sales, so critically important in British Columbia…. We are a consumer…. We rely on consumer spending in this province. Consumer spending has flatlined. We look at investment trends; they’re dropping. The pace of growth is slowing. All of those things….

Exports. We’re a small, open trading economy in British Columbia. Exports matter. In fact, there are programs in place…. I’m thankful they’re supported by the members opposite. We talk about export navigator programs. Why does that matter? We’re helping small businesses and medium-size enterprises figure out how they can capitalize on the export markets. What’s happening? Exports are down. Retail sales stagnant. Housing starts, 22 percent down in the first year of this budget plan.

We know that a plan has to look at business confidence. It has to look at how you grow a sustainable economy. You simply cannot continue to download the costs of your spending plan onto the backs of hard-working British Columbians. That’s exactly what this budget has done.

We see no plan. We see haphazard spending and increased taxes. This kind of budget cannot continue for much longer. If you listen and look at the quotes from many of the job creators in British Columbia…. The entire budget critique that this government must be hearing — the B.C. Business Council, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade….

You look at organizations called Abundant Transit B.C., Canadian Taxpayers. Generation Squeeze talked about the housing issue. Here’s what they had to say about this government’s housing strategy. This is Paul Kershaw of Generation Squeeze. “They’ve committed now to producing almost 2,500 fewer units of affordable housing over their first four years than they initially promised.”

In 2017, this now government stood before British Columbians and asked for their support. They did that based on some pretty significant promises. This budget fails to deliver on the most key of those promises: $10-a-day child care for those who want it and need it. Gone. Renters rebate. Gone. Housing starts dropping. The number of units completed — far fewer than were promised by this government. British Columbians do deserve the opportunities to get ahead, to have life feel just a little bit easier for them.

[3:40 p.m.]

I know that today, as we begin to unpack what’s in­cluded in this budget, there is much, much more to come. British Columbians are pretty smart. They’re going to realize that despite the promises and the rhetoric, the exponential increase in taxes, 23 new and increased taxes, they’re no further ahead than they were three years ago.

I look forward to the debate, to the discussion. I look forward to the opportunity to ask the really tough questions that British Columbians expect us to ask. After all, that’s the reason they sent all of us to this place. I look forward to the continued dialogue and comments by other members in this House.

Thank you for the time this afternoon.

A. Olsen: I’m pleased to rise and take my place in the debate on Budget 2020.

There are elements of this budget that I’m proud to stand behind. We’re seeing some positive incremental investments in our shared priorities with government. Some of these elements include increased CleanBC funding, the implementation of revenue-sharing with First Nations and the introduction of the B.C. access grant, which will make post-secondary education more accessible. I’ll speak to some of these accomplishments in greater detail later in this response.

However, while I fully support much of what is in this budget, I must say that it falls short of what is needed from the government at this point in history. It isn’t enough to just try to make life more affordable. The B.C. Greens have been consistently urging the government to think bigger, to think about how our economy is serving the needs of people and to drive an ambitious, modern, viable economic strategy as we respond fully and completely to the climate emergency.

In this budget, I see a government attempting to deliver on contradictory agendas. For example, they’re increasing investments in CleanBC yet, at the same time, entrenching our economy’s reliance on non-renewable resources like LNG. By pursuing conflicting agendas like this, the government’s ability to achieve long-term prosperity for our province is seriously limited. While there are important investments in programs and policies that matter to people and that do make life more affordable, there is no coherent economic strategy for our times.

In this budget, CleanBC received over $400 million of new funding on top of the $900 million announced last year. This is a substantial investment that we can all be proud of. The B.C. Green caucus team continues to work closely with the government on CleanBC. This plan provides a long overdue climate strategy that puts us on the pathway to meeting our 2030 climate goals.

CleanBC will always be limited in what it can achieve as long as the government is still attempting to expand LNG, the fossil fuel economy of the last century. This budget makes clear that this government is still treating CleanBC solely as an emissions reduction tool, and the economic activity that this government is incentivizing through massive tax breaks to LNG is the single biggest barrier to meeting our climate targets.

This doesn’t make any sense. The real economic opportunity for B.C. lies in using CleanBC as an economic driver so that not only do we meet our climate targets through regulation and policy measures like the carbon tax, but we also create huge numbers of local, high-quality jobs in the clean economy. We can do this, but it requires a deliberate, strategic approach to supporting the clean economy and growing innovation. We should be positioning local B.C. companies to develop and deliver the resources and technologies needed in the transition to the clean energy economy.

For example, we’re home to the majority of the minerals needed in solar panels. A thoughtful approach to development, including harnessing technologies that significantly reduce environmental impacts and putting an emphasis on local manufacturing, could see us as a global leader in supplying solar panels both at home and abroad.

[3:45 p.m.]

Similarly, the government can play a catalyzing role in creating centres of excellence that bring together industry, academia and various levels of government to develop new technologies. We have a willing partner in the federal government, but the province needs to be at the table putting forward a clear vision.

The fact that the budget makes no significant strategic investments in innovation is a missed opportunity. Instead, the largest portion of new spending in CleanBC is allocated to a program that reduces the carbon tax paid by heavy-emitting industries without any guarantees in their overall emissions reductions.

My riding is the source of a significant amount of economic activity. About $1 billion each year is generated on the Saanich Peninsula. Businesses there are excelling in manufacturing and innovation, in particular.

Over the past few years, I’ve been visiting businesses to learn more about them. Business attraction, growth and retention are very important to the sustainability and resilience of our communities in my riding. As such, it’s important to know why the entrepreneurs, innovators and change-makers have chosen to establish and invest in the Saanich Peninsula.

In visiting many of these businesses, I hear consistent themes. What is needed is more affordable housing and transportation options for workers. Many of the people who work on the Saanich Peninsula can’t afford to live on the Saanich Peninsula, and the transportation options to the region are limited. I’m thankful for the investments that have been made by this government and local non-profit rental housing societies to increase accessible and more affordable housing options in my communities, yet we remain challenged by the limitations of transit options.

While I recognize that there is an ongoing comprehensive transportation study for southern Vancouver Island, it is no secret that Highway 17 is a major transportation corridor that could be enhanced to provide a more robust transit service to the Saanich Peninsula. Frankly, it could start with targeted investments at major crossings, like Mt. Newton in Central Saanich, where there is no opportunity to get on an express bus that regularly passes through our community.

Another need I hear from the businesses is the need for more skilled trades training. To that end, one very positive aspect of this budget is the introduction of the B.C. access grant. This is a needs-based, upfront grant to students starting post-secondary studies. This investment will help remove barriers in education and training and help young people develop the skills needed to secure high-quality jobs.

It’s not just the manufacturing sector that is in need of workers, though. There is a critical shortage of front-line workers in the retail industry, care aides and many other sectors.

There is a significant shortage of affordable rental housing options on the southern Gulf Islands. While limited relief has come to Saltspring, there is still a tremendous need there and on every Gulf Island for housing options so the workers delivering critical services to those communities can live and work in those beautiful communities.

In this budget, the government is continuing to implement affordable early childhood education for young families across British Columbia. However, we share the concerns of advocates that the investment plan is not ambitious enough.

We cannot stall investments in this vital area. Young families need to be able to rely on high-quality and affordable early childhood education options. By striving to create a universally accessible child care and early childhood education system, we are creating a critically important public good, but it must be done right and done with care. Any limitations we introduce at this point will worsen as the system grows. I believe we must start from the principle that prioritizes spending public money on public goods as much as possible.

We will continue to urge the government to move the Ministry of State for Child Care from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the Ministry of Education. The early learning years are as or more critical as the later years. The Ministry of Education is best suited to fostering that educational continuum. In addition, early childhood educators are more than just babysitters. They are critical in establishing the excitement and joy of learning in our children. They are as important as our teachers and should be compensated as such. I’m happy that we are taking steps in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ve had many parents and interested stakeholders reach out to me for assistance in developing a discussion locally in my riding about child care and before- and after-school care in the communities in Saanich North and the Islands. I’m grateful that the three municipalities on the Saanich Peninsula have received funding to assess the needs and gaps in child care and that the minister responsible is open to having this important discussion in our community.

It is important that we look after our children and ensure that the investments we are making in their care are targeted to fill the needs and to close the gaps. This is more than just making life more affordable. While that is important, many parents that I know not only want space for their child, but they also want and need choice. There is nothing more disconcerting than the concerns that a parent has in the back of their mind about the quality of care that their children are receiving when they’re at work. Where there is a lack in supply and options, parents must accept any spot that’s available. That is definitely not the ideal situation.

This budget also delivers funding for a public inquiry into money laundering. Money laundering has had a staggering financial impact and human cost on our province. It has played a role in our opioid crisis, and dirty money flowing into our housing market has worsened the housing crisis, pushing affordable homes further out of reach for British Columbians. That is why we began pushing for the government to launch a public inquiry over a year ago. We pressed this government day in and day out for weeks to move on an inquiry. I welcome the funding to support their commitment to a public inquiry in Budget 2020.

British Columbians deserve a full and complete account of how we got to where we are, how money laundering was allowed to go on for so long and reach the scale that it did. There needs to be accountability for the decisions made by individuals and regulatory agencies that contributed to the scale and severity of the impacts in our communities. A public inquiry into money laundering in B.C. removes the investigation from partisan influence, protects the public interest and will help us restore the public’s trust that has been broken.

Another change that we see in this budget is the deci­sion to remove the PST exemption from sugary drinks, including diet and regular pop. This type of policy can be a part of a shift to emphasizing preventative health measures with the potential for significant health outcomes.

We spend the vast majority of our resources in the Ministry of Health and a substantial portion of the provincial budget in treating people when they are sick. Of course, we need a top-notch health care system to treat people and return them to good health. But what we need far more of is a proactive approach to wellness that helps people lead healthy lives. A key part of keeping people well and supporting them to live healthy lives is ensuring they have access to primary care.

In the majority of my riding and in communities across the province, there continues to be a concern about the lack of access to primary care. I understand the government’s announcement of new agreements and the creation of urgent care facilities. I must raise the concerns I have heard for months now about the impact urgent care facilities are having on the ultimate goal of attaching people to a team of health care professionals who work together to deliver high-quality community care.

The development of a super-clinic model to ease the immediate issues with backlogs for people in getting in front of a health care professional is posing other challenges. What British Columbians want is a health care provider or a team of providers that they can build a relationship with, that know them and that they can build trust with in some of the most private, sensitive and vulnerable interactions that we have.

It is worth noting that this is the third full budget introduced in this minority government. Early on, each major piece of legislation, each budget and throne speech was met with a great deal of speculation about whether this government would survive or if we’d pull them down.

Many commenters tried to stir up uncertainty, claiming that this government was unstable. Now in the third year of this joint endeavour, this sort of commentary and speculation has died down.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think this is something that we can be proud of. We decided, when we signed our agreement to support the government, that we shared a responsibility to try to make this work. I don’t think it’s my job to look for opportunities to pull government down and send British Columbians back to the polls.

Instead, I clearly see my job as threefold. First, it’s my utmost responsibility — the reason I was put in this place, with this seat — to represent the needs of my constituents. I’m directly accountable to them for the work that I do here. Second, it’s my job to work with government, through the confidence and supply agreement, on the issues that we have jointly identified as priorities for making B.C. a better place to live. Third, it’s my job as a member of the opposition party to hold this government accountable on areas where we think they’re taking the province in the wrong direction.

We have seen significant disappointments. There are areas where we strongly disagree with the direction this government is choosing to take. The decision to double down on LNG, talked about often, and to construct the Site C dam to power the industry are the most notable.

We’ve also made substantial progress on many shared priorities, including removing the corrupting influence of corporate union donations; tackling money laundering, speculation and fraud in our housing market; being the first jurisdiction to pass the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples; and moving to deliver affordable, quality child care to young families in our province.

It is my responsibility and my privilege to balance the roles that I fill as a local representative, minority partner and opposition member in the day-to-day work in this place. We continue in this chamber because our allegiance is not necessarily to this government but to the issues that we committed to in the CASA, the confidence and supply agreement.

While this budget falls short on providing the economic vision that is needed for B.C., issues that we’ve continued to raise with the government, it does continue to implement the commitments that we’ve made on many important issues. On that, I will be supporting Budget 2020.

T. Stone: It does give me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak to Budget 2020. We’re being asked here today, as part of this debate, to reflect on what we believe this budget will actually do for our province, for our constituencies, for the people that send us here to represent them. I have been reflecting on this budget, and I have been talking to a number of constituents back home and, obviously, colleagues and so forth. I’m going to offer my observations today on what I believe are the key takeaways from Budget 2020.

Before I do that, however, I want to acknowledge the exceptional work of the official opposition’s Finance co-critics, the member for Prince George–Valemount and the member for Surrey South, both of whom have done a tremendous job working with a number of our fellow colleagues to really dive deep into this budget, really scrutinize it and understand what’s here. And I do want to acknowledge my constituency staff back home in Kamloops and the tremendous work that they do.

I believe that this budget reflects, at the highest level, a government that has abandoned a whole bunch of major commitments, major promises that it made to British Columbians. I believe that this budget reflects a blueprint that the government is bringing forward that is devoid of an economic strategy. It’s devoid of a jobs plan.

It was initially refreshing to hear the interim Green leader just mention moments ago…. With respect to the budget, he said he’s disappointed that it’s lacking in a “coherent economic strategy.” Those are the words of the interim Green leader.

[4:00 p.m.]

Unfortunately, as I then listened to his remaining comments, he indicated that he intends to vote for this budget nevertheless — very, very disappointing.

I think the key question that British Columbians always ask themselves when a government brings in a new budget is: “Am I going to be better off? Am I going to be better off as a result of the measures that are in this budget?” And I think, fundamentally, the question is: are British Columbians better off after 2½ years of the NDP being in government? I think British Columbians are asking themselves that question. They’re asking themselves: “Is life more affordable for me and my family and for my friends and my neighbours?”

I think the answer to that question is a resounding no. This budget does not contain the $10-a-day daycare commitment that this government ran on. I’ll have more to say about that in a moment.

There is no mention of the promised $400 renters rebate. There is no plan to deal with congestion. No plan to replace the George Massey Tunnel in the Lower Mainland. There’s no money for commuter rail in the Fraser Valley. There’s no money for Surrey SkyTrain.

As I mentioned, the budget doesn’t contain a jobs plan. There’s no help in this budget for forestry workers and their families and communities that have been impacted by the significant downturn in forestry. Housing is no more affordable today than it 2½ years ago.

There’s no new money in this budget for the opioid crisis or mental health. There’s no new money for technology and innovation, which is ironic considering this government, in part, as they try to address the situation in the forest sector, points to innovation and technology and says, “This is the economy of the future. This is what we need to transition to,” and then there is no strategy to do it. There’s no money in the budget to facilitate that transition.

I mentioned housing. Housing is certainly not more affordable. The budget projects for a significant decline or decrease in the number of housing starts. All the while, the price of housing has begun to go up again and is projected to continue to escalate through the next three fiscal years.

The carbon tax increases. We’ve got residents up in the Interior and the north who continue to be exasperated when they open up their natural gas bill and they find out that the carbon tax they’re paying on it is more than the actual cost of the gas.

We continue to have the highest gasoline prices in North America here in British Columbia. ICBC rates will continue to escalate, notwithstanding what the government is saying about a freeze on rates this year and a promise of a rate reduction in an election year, next year.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Small businesses are reeling from skyrocketing property taxes on unused airspace. I introduced a private member’s bill in this House last fall to address that issue, to provide municipalities with an optional tool that they could use to very deliberately focus on specific streets and neighbourhoods and areas within their communities to bring down the property tax burden — certainly, the property taxes on unused airspace. The government has not taken us up on that, and there has been no forthcoming action to address that challenge.

We have recently raised questions in this House about skyrocketing strata insurance costs. Premiums are going through the roof. Deductibles are going through the roof. The monthly strata fees that people have to pay are going through the roof.

Interjection.

T. Stone: The member from Surrey can laugh, but there are 30,000 strata corporations in this province. Fifty percent of the residents of Metro Vancouver live in a strata unit. And you know what? They’re facing increases in their insurance premiums, the strata corporations are, of between 50 percent to 400 percent — even higher. We are hearing stories every day of deductibles that are going from a $25,000 deductible on water damage to $250,000 to $500,000 and, in some cases, even higher. We are even hearing stores of strata corporations that can’t get insurance.

Then you talk about the unit insurance that the strata owners have to have, and those costs are going through the roof. But, of course, no comment in this budget about what can be done to provide some relief, what can be done to take some action, with affordability first and foremost in mind.

[4:05 p.m.]

I haven’t got any constituents who have come up to me and have said to me: “You know what? Life is more affordable today than it was 2½ years ago.” Nobody is saying to me: “Thank goodness that the NDP have come to my rescue.” Nobody is saying to me any of that.

What they’re saying to me is: “Life is hard, and we’re struggling to make ends meet. Our rent is going up. Housing costs are going up. Gasoline is going up. Our taxes are going up.” Twenty-three new and increased taxes, to be exact, since this government came to power — $5.7 billion, on an annualized basis, of increased taxes in only 2½ years.

The NDP have raised tax revenues by over $3,025 for each household in British Columbia. They sit here and champion the decision to eliminate MSP premiums. They do that, and then, on the other hand, they increase all these other taxes and these other fees. If you look at the net of it, British Columbians are worse off, to the tune of $3,025 per family since the NDP came to power.

Interjections.

T. Stone: I know that the truth hurts, but by 2022, total taxation in B.C. will have increased by almost $4,700 per household under the NDP. Last year the government was only able to balance its budget because of its double-dip, in charging both the employers health tax and the MSP. That’s the only reason.…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: That billion dollars they received from that double-dip is the only reason they were able to balance the budget last year. If it was not for the four new taxes that are contained in this year’s budget, totalling about $260 million, this year’s budget wouldn’t be balanced either, right?

We’re going to have a new tax on sugary carbonated beverages. I’m not sure how this is going to work. It has been tried in a number of other jurisdictions, and it has failed miserably. You’re going to pay a tax on a Coke Zero, but you’re not going to pay tax on a double-double from Timmy’s. How absurd is that? How is this going to be tracked? I perhaps shouldn’t have said that because the NDP has never met a tax hike that it doesn’t like and that it’s not willing to put in place.

We’re going to be that jurisdiction in Canada that’s going to impose a tax on streaming video services. So if it’s not bad enough that British Columbians can’t afford, under this government, to go out to a movie…. They stay at home. They make some popcorn at home, make a snack, get the kids all set up. They put Netflix on or the Disney channel. Or maybe, like I do occasionally, I have my dad over, and we put on an NHL game via streaming video service. Guess what. British Columbians are now going to pay a Netflix tax. A Netflix tax is coming to British Columbia under the NDP.

Every single economic indicator that tells you where a province is going is going in the wrong direction. This is right out of their budget. Employment is projected to continue to decline. This province lost 32,800 private sector jobs over the last eight months…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: …and 7,700 jobs lost in December alone. Resource revenue is declining, most notably in the forest sector.

Can you imagine forest communities and forest families, upon being advised of what’s in this budget…? Imagine their reaction when they’re told that forestry revenues are going to be down by 40 percent between 2018 and the end of the fiscal plan — 40 percent. The once mighty and proud forest industry in this province will be a shadow of itself under this government, a 40 percent reduction.

Retail sales are stagnating. Net interprovincial migration is down. Exports are declining. Consumer confidence is declining. On and on the list goes. Every indicator is suggesting that this province is heading in the wrong direction.

[4:10 p.m.]

Let’s talk about housing for a moment, shall we? I’ve been quite enjoying the role of official opposition Housing critic, because I’ll tell you, there are few areas under the administration of the members opposite that the members are failing more miserably at. There are few areas that are as bad…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: …and as big a failure as their housing strategy. Their housing plan is a complete and total failure. Absolute failure.

Let me rattle off some numbers from B.C. Housing’s Q2 report — this just came out a few weeks ago — for the member from Surrey.

These are the government’s own numbers. Let’s start with: housing starts are projected to decline by 22 percent this forthcoming fiscal year — a 22 percent decline. That’s going to be followed by an 8.5 percent decline the following year and a 4.8 percent decline in housing starts. But it gets better, Members.

In addition to the supply shrinking and the number of housing starts declining, housing prices are going up. They’re projected to go up by 10 percent. This is a classic supply-and-demand challenge which we’ve been imploring the government to take action on.

How about a few more statistics? The NDP have promised 114,000 units of housing. The Minister of Housing loves to talk about her 114,000 units of housing. I’m going to be 147 years old by the time they deliver on that plan. That’s maybe giving away my age.

How many have they actually concluded to this point? Any guesses? How many affordable housing units have opened? That’s what matters. How many people are actually in affordable housing units? The number is 2,430. Not 24,000, like the government likes to say, and certainly not 114,000. I would suggest that we’re nowhere near on pace to achieve the 114,000.

Mr. Speaker, 46 percent of the units that the NDP claim to have initiated — that’s a new buzzword in governmentese, “initiated” — have no funding attached. How do you build housing, how do you deliver affordable housing units for people, when there’s no funding attached?

Again, out of B.C. Housing’s Q2 report, 42 percent of units are behind schedule. The student housing program, which is much vaunted by this government…. They have set a target of 8,000 units of new student housing, promised by the NDP. How many have opened? Zero. They’ve initiated about 23 percent of the 8,000 units, however, or 1,840 of them. That accounts for…. So 23 percent of those 8,000 units have 52 percent of the funding envelope committed to them. I would suggest those numbers don’t add up.

Of course, there have been a lot of projects that they have actually opened and cut ribbons on. There actually are real people in them. There’s a heck of a lot of B.C. Liberal housing projects in that mix. I enjoy reminding the Minister of Housing of that on an ongoing basis, and I will continue to do that.

Let’s talk about renters. Rents are up under the NDP in 2½ years. They’re up. I know that’s hard to believe. I know that’s really hard to believe. Rents are up. In Vancouver, renters are paying, on average, $2,148 more per year under the NDP — $2,148 more in Vancouver. In Metro Vancouver, as a region, renters are paying $2,064 more per year.

Surrey. Let’s look at Surrey. Surrey renters are paying, on average, $1,524 more per year under the NDP. Here in Victoria, renters are paying $1,788 more in rent. Nanaimo renters are paying $1,968 more per year. In Maple Ridge, they’re paying $2,004 more per year under the NDP. Kelowna, $2,148 per year. The minister from Nelson-Creston I’m sure would appreciate knowing that in Nelson, renters are paying $1,176 more per year in rent. It just keeps getting better and better.

[4:15 p.m.]

Let’s talk about market rental inventory. Do you know that in 2019, the city of Vancouver opened 947 market rental units, 947 in the entire city of Vancouver? It actually kind of sounds like a big number until you realize Seattle opened up 17,000 last year — 947 versus 17,000.

Something’s wrong with the picture here in British Columbia. The vacancy rates remain excruciatingly tight, and they’re not improving under this government. We talked about supply a moment ago. It’s no surprise. There’s not enough product being built and being brought on line. I could go on and on.

There are a few other topics I want to touch on. But again, with respect to housing, this government is failing miserably. With respect to the supportive housing side of the equation, this government is actually reducing the number of supportive housing units by about 2,400 that it plans on delivering over the next three years in their fiscal plan. How is that…? How do you reduce the number? You’ve only delivered 2,400 to date, and you’re going to actually cut back on your target? Really?

Maybe this is why some of the hard-working, dedicated housing advocates were pretty upset about yesterday’s budget. What did Jill Atkey of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association have to say? Jill’s great. Her team does amazing work in partnership with the government and First Nations and others.

Jill Atkey had this to say. She said: “Since government made their commitments to the ten-year plan in 2018, construction costs have risen 11 percent to 13 percent. So just to meet their targets, we were looking for an additional $190 million, maybe $200 million, and what we came into was actually a decrease over the next couple of years.” That was Jill Atkey. That’s not glowing praise of the government’s housing plan.

How about Thom Armstrong, another exceptionally talented, hard-working housing advocate? He’s the CEO of the Co-operative Housing Federation of B.C. What did he have to say? Well, he said this budget was very disappointing and that “kicking the can down the road” on the construction of those homes will only make B.C.’s housing crisis worse. “It was a difficult day for us, to be honest…. But they say budgets are about tough choices. I guess it’s my job to say I’d prefer they made a different choice.” That’s Thom Armstrong of the Co-operative Housing Federation.

This government has got to pull up its socks on housing. They’ve got to stop talking about 24,000 units of housing that they’ve delivered when they’ve actually opened…. It’s not 24,000. They’ve opened 2,400. They’ve got to stop talking about all the supportive wraparound supports that they have in place and start doing it. They’ve got to figure out, working with local governments, how they can unleash supply of all housing types — not condos or just apartments but all housing types across the whole housing spectrum. Yet we see in this budget that they’re actually reducing their targets over a three-year period. It’s not acceptable.

Child care. You know, the NDP seemingly have abandoned their plan to implement universal $10-a-day child care. The throne speech makes no mention of $10-a-day universal child care, instead saying that subsidies for child care will be based on need rather than need or want, as the NDP had promised in the 2017 platform. And $10-a-day child care is a temporary pilot program, with 2,500 child care spaces today. That’s 2 percent of the total 119,000 spaces. The $10-a-day plan is a ten-year plan. This year’s funding of $675 million will flatline at about one-third of the projected $2 billion that it will take to fully fund a $10-a-day program.

Now, the NDP claim to have funded 10,400 new spaces, but 2,000 or less are actually working. Less than 2,000 of these spaces the NDP say they’ve created actually have kids in them. It’s like the housing plan. “We’ve created 24,000 units.” Half of them have no funding attached, they’re behind schedule, and they don’t have partners in place. Therefore, they don’t actually have people in those units. Well, it’s the same with child care. These child care spaces that they say they’ve created…. It’s less than 2,000 that actually have kids in them.

[4:20 p.m.]

We’re almost three years into the government’s mandate. Today over 28,000 families pay $10 a day or less for their daycare. I found this really fascinating. This is the statistic today: 28,000 families. You know, they pay $10 a day or less. But guess what. So 22,000 of those families were paying the $10 or less under the former B.C. Liberal government. Imagine that. That doesn’t get talked about very much, does it? These 22,000 families are not part of the government’s $10-a-day plan.

Last but not least, there’s no money in this budget to increase funding for early childhood educators, ECEs, which are desperately needed. As you open up more spaces, you’ve got to actually have the people to look after the kids. No new money for that.

Let’s talk about transportation. I have a special place in my heart for transportation. I had the privilege of serving with some exceptionally talented people in that ministry for four years and bringing forth a B.C. on the Move transportation plan. You want to talk about doublespeak from the government? Again, like housing, transportation is a doozy, a real doozy.

The definition of doublespeak is to deliberately obscure, disguise, distort or reverse the meaning of words. This is what they do, the government. This what they do with transportation, especially. What they say is happening isn’t really happening.

Congestion is getting worse across the province, especially in Metro Vancouver. George Massey Tunnel would be half built — it would be over half built — by now if the province had actually moved forward with the project that was weeks away from moving forward. No. They made a political decision, and they’ve relegated tens of thousands of commuters in the Lower Mainland to congestion, to sitting in their vehicles.

They’re not being forthright on the transportation projects that they’re actually moving forward with and the timing of those projects and so forth. I love the $50 million table in the budget. I have it right here, Members, the $50 million table. Everyone in this House knows what that is. I went through, and I looked at the transportation investments in the $50 million table. How many of these $50 million projects are NDP projects, projects that this government had the vision and the foresight to bring forward to address safety and congestion? Well, let’s go through it.

The Highway 91 Alex Fraser Bridge capacity improvement. That was a B.C. Liberal project. Highway 97, Stone Creek to Williams Road, B.C. Liberal project. Highway 97, Williams Lake Indian Reserve to Lexington Road, B.C. Liberal project. Highway 1 widening and 216 Street interchange, B.C. Liberal project. How about Admirals Road, McKenzie Avenue, just down the road from here, an interchange that desperately needed to be built? That was funded and announced by the former B.C. Liberal government.

How about the Highway 7 corridor improvements? Funded by the B.C. Liberal government. Highway 99, the ten-mile slide. That project was…. The member for Fraser-Nicola beat a well-worn path to my office, and we funded and moved forward with that project, not the NDP. Highway 1 lower Lynn corridor improvements. That was a B.C. Liberal project, for sure. Illecillewaet four-laning and brake check improvements, B.C. Liberal project. Highway 14 corridor improvements, B.C. Liberals. West Fraser Road realignment, B.C. Liberals.

One in my riding. This is a good one. Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade Mountain, four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway, B.C. Liberal project. The Salmon Arm west project in the Shuswap member’s riding. That was funded and announced by…. That was a great day, wasn’t it, Member? The two of us did that one together.

Highway 91 to Highway 17 and Deltaport Way corridor improvements. This is, like, hundreds of millions of dollars. Funding was secured from the feds. All the heavy lifting, the work, was done by the former B.C. Liberal government.

The R.W. Bruhn Bridge, another really good highway project in the Shuswap MLA’s riding, another project that we announced and funded. The Quartz Creek Bridge replacement. The Kootenay Lake ferry service upgrades. The Highway 1, 216 Street to 264 Street widening. And the biggest one of all, the Kicking Horse Canyon phase 4 project. These were all B.C. Liberal projects.

You know the one that wasn’t? The Pattullo Bridge. The project that the NDP are moving forward with…. They’re going to replace a congested four-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge. That one just knocks your socks off, eh?

[4:25 p.m.]

That’s the $50 million table in its entirety. What the heck have you guys actually built? What have you actually done? Where is your vision for transportation in this province? There was $1.1 billion of infrastructure funding — a big chunk of that was transportation infrastructure — in last year’s budget which you didn’t even get around to spending. Come on. Get serious. People want to have the congestion addressed.

Interjection.

T. Stone: Shame on the minister from Vancouver. What has she done to advance transportation projects in her riding? Zippo. Absolutely nothing.

Of course, of those projects that I listed, a bunch of the highway projects are going to have the community benefits agreements attached to them. Community benefits agreements — we know what that means. These are these union-only deals, where you prevent British Columbians from working on projects if they don’t live within 100 kilometres of the project.

Illecillewaet four-laning project is one example. That project ended up being 47 percent over budget, $22.3 million higher. The Pattullo Bridge is going to be $100 million higher in costs because of the decision on the other side to impose union-only requirements.

My time is running out, and I know the members opposite are disappointed about that, but I wanted to talk about forestry and just how devastating the downturn in the forest sector has been and how little action there has been from the government. We’re talking 10,000 jobs that have been impacted, ten mills are permanently or indefinitely closed and 100 curtailments — no help in this budget whatsoever.

The $25 million rural dividend, which the members opposite ripped out of the hands of rural communities across the Interior and the north, did not get put back in this budget. Shame on them.

There are no actions to support the forest industry, although the parliamentary secretary did come to Kamloops to announce, with great fanfare, the grants in lieu program, which has been around for 40 or 50 years. Something that the government was really proud to renew for the city of Kamloops, paying taxes on provincially owned assets in the city.

The tenure transfer when Vavenby mill shut down. Canfor and Interfor, the Simpcw First Nation, Clearwater, Vavenby — everybody’s on the same page. They want that tenure transfer to take place, with the majority of that tenure going to Interfor’s Adams Lake operation. It’s been sitting on the Forest Minister’s desk for eight months. That is a disgrace, especially when you get out there and you look those forest families in their eyes.

I’ve got to tell you that this budget misfires on so many levels. It betrays the government’s fundamental commitment to making life more affordable for British Columbians, and it fails to deliver a vision to ensure opportunity for all British Columbians in the years ahead.

I will be voting no to Budget 2020.

Hon. M. Mark: Sorry, I’ve just got to let that out of my system and get serious about this budget and to take seriously my rightful place in this chamber and to acknowledge my constituents who elected me to have a voice in this chamber, who do take seriously the concerns of affordability, the environment and the services that they rely on in their backyard.

I’d like to acknowledge that our beautiful Legislative Assembly is on the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-​speaking people, members of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

It gives me pleasure to give remarks and support Budget 2020. I hear a bit of “hindsight 20-20” remarks from the other side, but bringing it back to reality — right here, right now — people do care about the items that were offered in this budget. This budget was about people.

Before I continue to speak about people, I just wanted to mention some very, very important people in my life that help me to get here each and every day — my husband, Cassidy Kannemeyer; my daughters, Maya and Makayla, who inspire me every day. In fact, Maya was born under almost the entire regime of the B.C. Liberals. It was her, it was my young daughter, my little Maya papaya, who inspired me to get into politics to make life better because I was getting sick and tired of having to fundraise to make sure she had a quality education.

[4:30 p.m.]

As a single parent who struggled to try to find child care as a student who was going to university, it’s a bit rich to hear the members opposite talk with any conviction or passion about affordability.

I want to thank my daughter Maya for inspiring me; Makayla, who is tough as nails and wants to make sure that her mom goes to work safely each and every day to do her job; my team — my constituency staff, my staff that work in my ministry office. And, of course, to acknowledge my grandparents and their resilience and their strength to allow me to be standing here today as a strong Nisga’a, Gitx­san, Cree and Ojibwa woman.

I say that because I’m kind of in the fighting stance. When I hear the opposition talk with such disdain, it really, really irks me. But I don’t want to speak about the budget out of anger or being irritated. I want to speak about the opportunity to fuel up our province, to build the best B.C. It’s not a slogan when you talk about building the best B.C., building up communities, lifting people up, lift as you climb — what a concept.

The members opposite don’t want to talk about…. I hear some moaning already. I love it. I love hearing the moaning. I didn’t even mention the dumpster fire. I didn’t mention all the 16 years of damage that happened from the other side. They don’t want to hear about it. They don’t want to hear about 5,000 days of calculated damage, going to work every day. It wasn’t about lifting people up. You know, we’re cleaning up the ICBC mess so that we can help people all over British Columbia that rely on their cars to get to school and get to work.

Believe it or not, a B.C. NDP cabinet minister mentioned work. Yeah, believe it or not. There are members on this side of the House that do care about people that go to work, that have a job, that have child care, that help build up this beautiful province.

I’m going to pause for a moment, because I’m thankful for the opportunity to stand here in this House to talk about a budget that is going to support our economy. I know the members opposite think that the B.C. NDP have an allergic reaction to speaking about the economy. But as the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, I can guarantee every member in this chamber that I’ve gone to work every day for the last — just want to make sure I got it — 945 days to make sure that we’re lifting up students and creating opportunity.

Budget 2020 had a really amazing feature in it. We made a generational investment with the new B.C. access grant. It’s a needs-based grant. Maybe MLAs heard about the campaign. But for years, students were calling for an upfront grant that will help, in this case, 43,000 students across this province access public post-secondary education. It is going to help them afford their tuition and upfront costs and complete their certificate, diploma and degree educational aspirations.

I’m very proud. This was a call to action from the students for a very, very long time. I’m going to tell you how long it was. I’m going to mention it: 16 years, which equals 5,887 days. The members opposite, the B.C. Liberals, when they were on this side and had the choice, while they were in government, took a wrecking ball to the public post-secondary institution ecosystem. I’m going to repeat it. They took a wrecking ball to the public post-secondary ecosystem.

I’ll tell you what I inherited in July 2017. I inherited a ministry that was on life support. Let me tell you why. The member for Prince George–Valemount, who was in here not too long ago, talking about the budget, may have held a position or two.

Some of the decisions that were made in the early days when the B.C. Liberals were on this side of the House…. In 2002, they deregulated tuition fees, allowing a shocking 184 percent increase in tuition between 2001 and 2005. They paved a way for post-secondary education to be so out of reach for students all across B.C.

[4:35 p.m.]

Then, without even thinking about the pain they caused students and families with skyrocketing tuition fees, they cut the $80 million B.C. students grant program in 2004. I mentioned that my daughter was born in 2003. The cuts were calculated, and they had a damaging effect on the public post-secondary ecosystem.

In 2004, they dismantled the skills-training and apprenticeship programs and slashed the ITA staffing from 120 — we want to be clear about our math here — to 12 staff at the Industry Training Authority. This, by the way, is one of my Crowns and is responsible for the whole apprenticeship system and making sure that people get trained up to the red seal in our province. But it goes further. They had a jobs blueprint with no action, no money and no vision.

Sorry, I’ve just got to pause for a moment because the audience is coming in to get a front row seat to heckle.

Then they didn’t stop there. They continued to cut funding to PSIs by $74 million between 2012 and 2017. They ignored crucial housing, student housing. They created 130 beds. I want to pause for a moment, because I often hear what I’m going to call Liberal math and the criticisms to the B.C. NDP and our government about all of the things that we haven’t done.

The gutting…. Sorry, what was it? I think the member opposite said: “The tax-and-spend NDP, the tax-and-spend NDP.” I heard an “mm-hmm” on the other side. But do you know what I’m going to say? When they were on this side, when the B.C. Liberals were on this side, their records were cut-and-gut. The B.C. Liberals cut and gutted the public post-secondary ecosystem that I inherited, and from day one, I’ve been doing everything I can to restore confidence for students, to have a door to walk through to get an education, to better our province.

I’m going to pause there, but it doesn’t end there. I’m going to get to the good stuff. I just wanted to frame what I inherited as the minister because there’s so much doom and gloom from the other side, that somehow we’ve ruined the province in the last 2½ years.

As I said, I inherited a ministry on life support. They ignored the booming tech sector. I’ve heard two members opposite talk about the tech sector and how important it is to our economy. It’s true. The tech sector is extremely important. Most of the tech sector in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant…. They’ve created 125,000 jobs across this province. They’re vital. But did the members opposite invest in the tech sector? Did they invest in the tech seats? We did the first lift in a decade. I just want to grab the document, just to be really clear about — what was it? — the first….

The member opposite, from Kamloops–South Thompson, talked about nothing going to Kamloops. Well, you know what? TRU got the first software engineering program from our NDP government. That was a choice that we made because we wanted to bring tech…. We didn’t want tech just in the Lower Mainland. We want to make sure that tech is available all across this province. I know I’m hearing thank you from the opposite member who is from, I think, North Kamloops.

I’m going to add another announcement that we committed to. That was the civil and environmental engineering degree program at the University of Northern British Columbia, the first engineering program to ever be offered in the north. That was a call to action that the member for Prince George–Valemount knew all about. It was a call to action for almost a decade. There was no commitment; there was no investment. Talk about “no vision.” The member opposite said there was no vision. They had, maybe, a vision, but didn’t sign the cheque. We signed the cheque. We are investing in people because we know that we can’t afford to leave a generation behind.

Last but not least, the record that, maybe, one member from the opposite side will stand in here to take credit for. Talk about turning their backs on students. That’s slapping cruel tuition fees on adult basic education and English-language-learning programs. That was a choice.

[4:40 p.m.]

The reason why I am mentioning all of these facts, which might be hard to hear, is that government is about making choices. Being in government is about making tough choices. You can’t fund everything.

The members opposite would like to paint a picture that the NDP is out just spending their inheritance. We are investing in people. When the member says that we’re out there spending…. Investing in people is the right thing to do. Why would you turn your back on education? It doesn’t make any sense to me why the member opposite would promote turning your back on education.

Let’s talk about the new direction. I’ve been the minister 945 days. One of the first things I did was we visited all 25 public post-secondary institutions across the province. One of the first actions we did was we reduced interest on student loans. Then, in 2017, we eliminated the unfair tuition fees on adult basic education and English-language-learning programs.

Then, in September 2017, we announced the first-ever tuition waiver program for former youth in care. The reason why I say “first” is because the members opposite had every chance to open the doors for former youth in care to get a quality education, and they chose not to. That is a choice that they made, and it’s not the choices that we’re making on this side.

In November 2017, we invested in tech seats. I’d mentioned 2,900 tech seats, the first lift in a decade. I won’t go through the list, because I’ve already mentioned that some of it was at TRU, some of it was at UNBC, and it was also at College of New Caledonia. We’ve announced tech seats all across this province because we know that tech is not a 604 industry; it’s a 250 and B.C.-wide industry that we want to support.

I mentioned student housing. So 533 new beds are at Thompson Rivers University. It was one of the first an­nouncements that I was ever able to make as a minister. We changed the rules so that we could invest in student housing, so that they’re a part of B.C.’s capital plan. We changed the rules….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mark: I’m really glad that the member opposite is coming here to join me and thank me for all the work that I’m doing at TRU. I’m going to keep….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, just a second.

Members.

Minister continues.

Hon. M. Mark: I’m adding another fact. In Budget 2019, we eliminated interest on B.C. student loans, which supports 200,000 students across the province, saving $22 million to meet the needs of the trades and the red seals, to support the Industry Training Authority.

We’re funding…. I know, believe it or not, the idea of funding and investing in students and people is obscure to the members opposite. But we believe that you can’t build the best B.C. unless you invest in people. You can’t become a red seal unless you get training. You can’t get the training unless you have instructors. There is a strategy on this side, and it’s really clear: it’s about investing in people.

I’m going to continue, and I hope I don’t get any heckling when I talk about TRC and UNDRIP. I know I’m a woman, standing in here, and that’s just…. There’s a theme here of heckling. I’m going to talk about TRC, and I’m going to talk about UNDRIP.

Our government funded the first Indigenous law program in Canada. That is what truth and reconciliation is all about. We are funding Indigenous teachers because we believe that it is important to have Indigenous teachers in front of the classroom. That was article 63 of the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action. And we are investing in the development of a degree program for Indigenous languages fluency, which is article 16 of the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action.

I want to pause for a moment to acknowledge that reconciliation — and all members have spoken about it in these chambers — is hard work. The idea of doing heavy lifting and the idea of coming to the table and building relationships is something that all members of these chambers know, especially if they have First Nations in their community. It is all about building relationships, it’s about building trust, and it’s about building respect, which is why I’m so proud that our government has committed to implementing the declaration of the rights of Indigenous people.

[4:45 p.m.]

On that note, I know that I don’t have much more time to speak about all of our investments in public post-secondary education and skills training, but I do want to speak a little bit about the B.C. access grant.

I want to thank my staff. I want to thank the public service. The members opposite often thank the public service and the amazing people that work in the public service. I couldn’t agree more. There are people that are dedicated, that go to work each and every day to make people’s lives better. And I want to thank my deputy and everyone on my team who, over the last two years, worked tirelessly to design a system that works for students.

Students told us that they wanted an upfront, needs-based grant that helped them get through the door. We listened, we did the research, we redesigned the system, and we made it better. Our labour market outlook, which is a little snapshot of our Good Jobs for Today and Tomorrow guide, tells us that nearly 80 percent of all new jobs over the next decade will require some level of post-secondary education. Our government is investing to make more B.C. students have access to the supports they need to be the first in line for their dream careers.

The previous government didn’t invest in student aid. They tinkered with the system 65 times and called it brand-new. I want to give an analogy. Think of a car. The previous government painted the car — the same car, just to be clear — 65 times with no new money, no new oil change. They made it look new, shiny on the outside, but it was hollow. It was the same old car that wasn’t maintained.

We took the whole thing apart. The public service, my team, took the whole thing apart, overhauled it to make it better for students. The B.C. access grant is a vehicle that helps students access, afford and complete their studies and join the 21st century economy.

When I say rehauling, the grant nearly doubles the number of recipients from the previous grant, from 20,000 to over 40,000 students. Students that will benefit the most are part-time students and those studying in their certificate and diploma areas. It’s going to help in-demand careers like ECE workers, early childhood educators, health care aides and trade students. It includes a much broader range of steady programs in high-demand occupations.

It’s an annual investment of $41 million, including $4 million a year in new annual funding. And the best part that students have been saying is that it’s going to be ready for the fall. It’s going to be ready in September 2020 so that students who’ve been calling for this for almost 20 years, for two decades, are going to get a chance to get ahead.

I want to quote a leader in the community, Tanysha Klassen. She was here yesterday celebrating with the students. They were jumping for joy, high fives that finally their voices had been heard on the call to action to have upfront grants. I just want to quote her.

“A new pool of money is available to low- and middle-income people in B.C. wanting access to post-secondary education. Minister Carole James unveiled a new program called the B.C. access grant. This autumn more than 40,000 students will have access up to $4,000 a year.”

It’s per year. It’s not a one-time-only grant.

Tanysha Klassen speaks for the B.C. Federation of Students. Tanysha says:

“It’s something that students in B.C. have been advocating for, for almost two decades. The previous student grants program got eliminated almost two decades ago” — just to be clear, eliminated almost two decades ago — “so since then, students” — and, I would add, almost a whole generation — “have been fighting for this. And this is a really great way for it to come back in and to really help students graduate with a lot less debt. Students, on average, are graduating with almost $30,000 worth of debt. The new program gives money to students up front rather than when they finish their degree.”

On that note, I’m glad that I had a chance to speak to the B.C. access grant. Students have had a very effective social media campaign asking for grants, not loans. There has been a call to action all across the province. I’m proud that our government listened. I know that the students have met with the Premier, myself and probably all members of this Legislative Assembly, calling for greater access to post-secondary and training.

[4:50 p.m.]

As I close, I’m so pleased with the work that we have done to correct the wrongs — and I’m not going to say 16 years, but over 5,000 days — because it hurt people. It hurt people that….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: You know, when there’s this kind of snarking when I talk about education…. I’m going to pause for a moment about the power of education. Honestly, I’m getting a bit sick of it. I’m going to put that on the record. I’m sick of it.

I’m sick of it because when I stand here, I stand here with so much pride. Education saved my life. For the members opposite, they have constituents all across this province. It doesn’t matter which party you belong to. Education is the great equalizer.

I went to six different high schools. I know that when you cross that finish line, it will make a difference in your life. We know that education also breaks that cycle of poverty. What I’ve been able to do as a minister is… I’ve been able to meet students all across the province who have said that their lives are better because they have access to education. That is why I’m so proud of Budget 2020. I’m so proud of the 1,100 young people that are now going to school who were former youth in care, who are getting an education all across this province to better their lives, because education is the great equalizer.

Thank you for allowing me to have the chance to speak to this budget and to remind the members opposite that when they think about whether they’re going to vote or not…. I hope that the members opposite will be in support of this budget that puts people first. But let’s not forget that you can’t build a bridge without people. They can talk about all of the roads they want and all of the bridges they want and all of the housing they want. We’re building the best B.C. But you know what? You need skilled people to do so.

It’s not child care. It’s not babysitting. It’s early childhood development and early childhood education. We’re investing in those people who are looking after our kids so we can go to work and build the best B.C.

Lastly, you can’t build the tech sector without the talent.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you to my constituents.

Ha’awa t’ooyaḵsiy̓ n̓isim̓.

N. Simons: I just wanted to welcome a couple of guests in the gallery today. We have….

Deputy Speaker: Did you ask for leave?

N. Simons: I have to ask for leave. I withdraw those comments. No welcomes yet. Do I have leave?

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: According to my colleagues, it looks like I have leave to introduce two guests in the legislative gallery today. Jack Crompton, the mayor of Whistler, is here. Joining him, next to him — I think they’re here on UBCM business — is Maja Tait from Sooke. I’d just like to ask the members who are present in the House to welcome them.

Debate Continued

M. Bernier: I want to thank the member opposite for his introduction. I’m going to take that that was also the extent of his budget speech, since he used up his time there. He also took away the fact that I was going to welcome His Worship for being here.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: It was the best speech. You’ve witnessed the best speech he’s ever done in this House.

With that, it’s an honour, I think for all of us and for myself, to take my place to talk about the 2020 budget. I’ll start by thanking my constituency assistant, my legislative assistant and all of the staff in the building that work with us. We all have amazing staff on both sides of the House. I know that we thank them for what they do every single day coming to this building.

We want to also thank them for what they had to endure last week, coming to this building just to fulfil their duties and their jobs to be here. What they went through last week was unacceptable. Again, we want to thank all of the staff in this building for what they had to put up with. It’s something that should have never happened to begin with.

[4:55 p.m.]

Back to the budget. I saw one comment yesterday from an outlet about five minutes after the budget was announced. It summed it up, actually — I thought perfectly — within, yes, one tweet. It was able to sum up the budget. Surplus down. Taxes up. Contingencies down. Debt up. Housing starts down. Housing costs up. No help for small business. Taxes up and more red tape. You could actually fit the entire thoughts of the new budget into one simple tweet.

To get into some of the details. You know, I don’t think there’s a tax that this government has ever seen that they don’t jump all over and enjoy and try to figure out how to implement. We’ve heard members talk about all the new taxes. The members in the NDP will stand up and try to say how they’re trying to make life — this budget — for people. They forget to add the words “this budget is about how to tax people,” because that’s basically what this budget has accomplished.

You look at last year’s budget. When we looked at the fact that the government was only able to achieve a balanced budget last year by adding a double-dip, by adding in the employer health tax while they’re also collecting MSP…. I’ll talk about that a little bit more in a moment.

Then this year the only way they’re going to be able to balance the budget again was not by growing the economy, not by making sure more people want to move to British Columbia, not by promoting opportunities for businesses to invest or small businesses to thrive. In fact, they’re putting taxes in to hurt them. The only way they’re able to balance the budget — yet again, this government — is by increasing and adding more taxes.

That seems to be the threat to industry, the threat to business, the threat to people living here in British Columbia. If you want to come here, don’t worry. This government is going to stand up and say they’re thinking of you while they’re taking more money out of your pocket.

The one thing for myself that was really disappointing through this whole budget process was the fact that nobody — the Minister of Finance and nobody so far — really stands up and talks about what’s really important for the people of British Columbia: growing the economy to make sure there are jobs and opportunities for people to even stay here and live here.

Right now the only people that have actually contacted me saying they really like this budget are my friends in Alberta because it’s helping their jobs plan, they think, going forward because people, once again, are going to be looking at what typically happens under the NDP government. They start getting taxed to death. They start losing their jobs. They start finding that it’s not affordable to live here, so they have to leave this province for more and better opportunities for their family.

When you look at the trend that’s happening right now, in fact, it’s about a 15 percent decrease in the amount of people who have chosen in the last year to move to British Columbia. The trend is going down. Mind you, the trends on most things are going down. Most economic indicators — job growth, investment, GDP growth…. Everything is going down except taxes. Taxes are going up.

I’m waiting, actually, for one member of the NDP — anyone — to contradict the fact and to argue the fact that there aren’t 23 new or increased taxes over the last couple years under the NDP because, absolutely, they can’t contradict that. It’s been brought to the attention of this House. They actually….

Interjections.

M. Bernier: I love this one. And please continue heckling, because that gives me more and more ammunition to talk about all of the things that this government is failing to do.

They keep trying to tout MSP, that they eliminated it. They did not eliminate. They just transferred. They know well that they transferred the tax to people in businesses, to small businesses — many who are out there saying they can’t afford it.

I’ll give you an example. I’ve got one in my riding, a business in my riding, that never had to pay the MSP before for its employees. It was a thriving business. They were struggling competing against Alberta companies because we’re right on the border in Dawson Creek. Many companies in my area do struggle, sometimes, especially now with all the increased taxes, to be able to compete when they’re bidding on projects in Alberta. But I had one company that contacted me here about six months ago when he started having to look at the EHT, the employer health tax.

[5:00 p.m.]

It was going to cost him $180,000 a year, the employers health tax — a tax that he had no control over or say in, a tax that he was now going to have to pay, but he had very little opportunity to recoup those costs. Now, we’re hearing this over and over, but in this specific case, he was unable to compete against Alberta companies. He was forced to close his business and lay off 120 people. How is that beneficial for the province of British Columbia? How is that beneficial for people and families who are trying to put food on the table, support their kids, but other opportunities are lost?

Now, maybe people don’t like to talk about this, but the backbone of almost all of our communities, especially small communities in rural British Columbia, is small business. Those small businesses…. When I was running soccer programs in my community, if I was looking for somebody to donate to help a soccer team, who anted up? Small business. If it’s the ballet club in town that’s doing a little performance, and they need some money, and they need somebody to step up to help sponsor, who usually does that? Small business.

Now what we’re hearing from these small businesses is that because of things like the employers health tax, the additional taxes that are being piled on them, the increase in carbon tax on their natural gas bills, they’re having to pull back. They’re saying to community groups: “Sorry, we can’t sponsor you anymore. We can’t support you. In fact, we might not be able to hire your kids to work in the summer anymore.” We’re hearing those stories over and over again in our communities.

The members opposite want to continue to highlight…. Of 23 new taxes, they like to brag about the elimination of MSP and forget to say that all it was, was a transfer to a new tax. They hate to talk about that one at all. Well, they’ll heckle me on it, but they hate to actually stand up during their time to actually talk about that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The member is trying to say: “Lower taxes for British Columbia.” Maybe he should actually look at his own budget that actually says, over the next three years, that taxes are going up $4,700 per household in the province of British Columbia. How is that lower taxes? How is raising the carbon tax on people in most of British Columbia that pay natural gas bills and have no chance to lower that natural gas bill…? Now we’re actually having to pay a higher carbon tax.

In fact, as the member from Kamloops before me said, which is very accurate: some of those carbon taxes now on natural gas bills are actually higher than the actual product itself. I worked for 20 years in the natural gas industry. This is one thing that I know quite well. I’m hearing from people in my area the frustration on the increased carbon tax, when there’s nothing that you can do about it.

Now, I’ve got a small business in Dawson Creek that actually just shared with me…. I’ll leave his specific name and business name out of it right now, but a small business opportunity in Dawson Creek. His last natural gas bill over cold months…. Don’t forget. We also…. Although the NDP might try to claim they can, we actually can’t control the weather. It does get cold, and natural gas usage goes up.

This one business shared with me his natural gas bill: $4,000 for this small business for two months, and $2,200 of that was carbon tax — $2,200. How is a business like that supposed to be able to stay in business, as they go forward trying to do that, as carbon taxes are going up and they have no control over that?

These are the kinds of things that this government just glosses over: all these new taxes and the impact that it’s actually having on everyday people, companies that are trying to grow and companies that are trying to invest here. We’re seeing a downturn in that, and the projection that the government put in their own documents is that revenue is going to be going down from businesses.

The only thing they didn’t add in that is it’s because we’re scaring them away and out of British Columbia. But they at least acknowledged the fact that revenues are going to be going down in this budget. That’s a shame, especially when you look at the resource sector and the industries that have actually built this province.

[5:05 p.m.]

On that, I should probably start with another thank-you to all of the people who did a very respectful rally yesterday on the lawns of the Legislature to support all of the forestry workers and forestry contractors and companies that are struggling right now in the province of British Columbia. It was a very respectful rally. It was a very articulate rally, in the presentations that were brought forward by the people that showed up, who spent hard-earned money, some of them having to use what’s left of their EI cheques that are almost finished to be able to come down here to have their voices heard and to express their opinions.

This budget and the budget speech did nothing to actually show any support for rural British Columbia, for the resource sector and for industries that actually have built this province. In fact, it did the exact opposite by not identifying the supports for these companies, who, by the way, employ tens of thousands of people and want to continue doing that. They actually said: “Don’t worry. We’re going to continue taxing everybody. Maybe we don’t need your business here at all.”

When you see a reduction in the Forestry Ministry’s budget, when you see a reduction in the Energy and Mines Ministry’s budget and when you start seeing all of these reductions in the budgets of the resource sectors’ ministries, and at the same time, they actually don’t talk about them at all, there are no supports there. This is what we’re hearing. I’m hearing, specifically, up in my area, from people who live in my riding, saying: “This is another example of this government ignoring rural British Columbia and ignoring the people who actually help build this province.” That’s, frankly, a shame.

When you look at some of the things also missing from this budget…. Where is the $10-a-day child care for everybody in the province that wants it? It’s not there. Rents have gone up. I don’t think anybody in this House is arguing the fact that rent continues to go up. Last year, it went up a drastic amount. People were probably really looking forward to that $400 renters rebate. Well, that never happened — another broken promise from the NDP. I’m sure a lot of them were thinking: “Don’t worry. It wasn’t in last year’s budget, after they promised it. It must be in this year’s budget.” Sorry. Once again, it’s not.

The government forgets that in order to have affordable opportunities for housing, you have to have a place to be able to buy — a place to be able to move in. Housing starts are down 22 percent. Of course rents are going to go up. If there’s nowhere for people to live, rent goes up. Housing starts go down, because people can’t afford to invest in British Columbia. It’s unfortunate. It’s the sad truth. It’s, again, unfortunate this government has done absolutely nothing about it and, in fact, is just making the issue worse.

I heard a couple of members in the NDP stand up. They would like to tout, and they bring it up, the ICBC debacle that they are continuing to just make worse. They sit there, and they try to talk about: “We don’t need choice. We just need to try to fix ICBC. But by the way, don’t worry. We’re going to help lower ICBC rates, conveniently, next year, before an election. But we’re going to freeze the rates.”

They try to pat themselves on the back. I know their arms are getting pretty sore from doing that lately. But they’re patting themselves on the back, they’re saying, for freezing rates, forgetting to talk about the fact that they’ve increased them to the highest levels they’ve ever been.

The spinoff effect of that is the negative opportunities that it’s had also for employment. When you’ve got a young individual in my area of rural British Columbia…. We know we have lots of MLAs on our side of the House…. Half of our caucus is from rural B.C., in comparison to three or four, I think it is, outside of the Lower Mainland — excluding Vancouver Island, before I get heckled on that one from my colleague across.

[5:10 p.m.]

We’re hearing the huge impact this is having on young students, young people, to be able to work. How is a 17- or 18-year-old kid, who’s so excited to have his first job, but the only way he can get there, because it’s a 25-mile drive and minus 40 in the wintertime to get to his job…? How is he supposed to afford $5,000 or $6,000 a year when he’s working part-time in the evenings while he’s trying to go to school?

While all these kids now are struggling to hold a part-time job, companies are actually saying they’re struggling in employing youth. How is a company able to employ youth now when their insurance goes up? I’ve got a company in town that told me they used to employ six people, six youth under the age of 20 — usually high school, just graduating out of high school and maybe going to university. They’ve had to not hire those kids back anymore this year because of the increase in ICBC rates because of the risk profile that this government has now put on young people.

The employers are stuck in a situation where they have to now pay increased ICBC rates on their fleet if they’re going to employ these young kids to drive. Well, when they’re having a hard enough time already because of the employer health tax and all the red tape and increased carbon tax and everything else that is happening, guess who’s suffering now. More young people who are trying to make ends meet or find that first job or get out and maybe pay for university. They’re unable to find these jobs.

We also have heard in this House, and outside, the huge issues we have right now with strata corporations that are unable to get insurance, or the issues they have with the regulations around strata to be able to insure. Some of them can’t even do it. This budget — hollow, void. It’s almost like any time a problem happens, this government buries their heads in the sand and tries to pat themselves on the back for something else but won’t actually acknowledge the issues at hand that people are bringing forward when they’re looking for help.

When you look at the issues that people have asked for…. You know, this government, if they do acknowledge it, will stand on a street corner and say: “Look at us. Look at us. Don’t worry. The problem will be fixed.” But then they run away and do nothing about it and then try to claim that they actually are solving the problem.

A perfect example is — what? — three years ago. The Premier stands on a street corner in the middle of Surrey and says: “Don’t worry. Once we are elected…. You make sure you elect all of us in Surrey, because we’re going to get rid of half the portables in two years” — which, by the way, was about four months ago — “and the other half of the portables will be gone by 2021.”

They didn’t spend the money in the capital budget that they had. If you put money in there but don’t spend it, I guess that’s a bit of a failure right there. But we’ve never seen more portables in Surrey than we have right now. So it’s another example of…. This government, I guess, tells people what they want to hear and hopes, at the end of the day, they don’t realize that they didn’t deliver on the promises that they made to those people when they actually were hoping to get elected and put into government.

I’ll say there’s still hope. There’s still hope. You miraculously need to eliminate just under 400 portables in the next 18 months. It takes about 18 months to even go through the process to start building a school. It takes another couple of years to build it. But miraculously, this government, to fulfil that promise, will somehow eliminate almost 400 portables in Surrey in the next 18 months if they plan on staying in right through until the end of 2021.

I mentioned earlier that the only way this government was able to balance the budget this year was by adding three new taxes. Let’s think about that for a second. We were kind of, I hope, joking earlier: don’t give the NDP any ideas about, maybe, a double-double at Tim Hortons, because they might want to start taxing that now. But don’t worry. When….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: It is awfully sugary, that double-double.

It’s pretty bad when this government, to balance a budget, will actually look at now taxing carbonated drinks, for one. We won’t get into the health merits, because it has been looked at before in other jurisdictions. Should it? Should it not? What are the health merits? Trying to discourage people from maybe drinking less pop?

An Hon. Member: How about a Doritos tax?

M. Bernier: Oh, a Doritos tax. We could do that. But now that marijuana is legal, I think they want to maybe look at that, because they might be getting more Doritos being sold. But I digress.

[5:15 p.m.]

They look at the fact that they’re now going to be taxing carbonated drinks. I thought about this, and I’ve actually had some people contact me already, because the government, as usual, is kind of void of facts when they announce things. That’s the issue that most people face, because it creates that uncertainty in the province. But now I’ve got…. I’m waiting to hear, then, from members opposite.

There’s this new tax, and it says that it’s on fountain tap. It’s on pop machines. It’s on anywhere where you’re going to find a carbonated drink. Well, when you go home now and you grab your McDonald’s, you get to pay extra tax on that pop now. But the one that people have contacted me now in concern about is: what does this mean now for not-for-profits? You’ve got your small, little not-for-profit group that has a little pop machine there, and they sell pop on the side when they’re at their hockey games, or they’re selling a little bit of pop.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, at least the water is tax-free for now. Don’t give the NDP more ideas.

This is actually a concern. This is more unnecessary red tape, whether it’s for not-for-profits or small business. They’re going to have to change their whole systems now on collecting and remitting tax, all because of a change of added taxation to a bottle of pop or a bit of pop through the fountain.

As was mentioned earlier, it’s okay. As you grimace — no pun intended — after you go through the drive-through at McDonald’s to grab your pop….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Thank you for that.

You just paid tax on your pop to go home. You now get to go download a couple of movies or live-stream your movies or you’re maybe listening to Spotify on your headset on your way home, and — whoa — to the surprise of people, now you’re being taxed on that. I believe we’re the first jurisdiction to look at doing that. So when you pay more tax for the pop, you actually get to look now at paying more for downloading in British Columbia for your live streaming on your Netflix.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: Yeah, yeah. So they want to reference Quebec. That’s the low-tax jurisdiction of Quebec. Let’s reference that one. That’s a good one. The members opposite want to reference one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in Canada as a poster child. That’s really great.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order. We will hear the speaker, please.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate it, but it’s fine. I do appreciate the heckles that will come from that.

Regardless, there’s nothing in this budget, other than taxes that are being increased, that is actually helping the people here in British Columbia get ahead at all. The taxes being increased are going to help a budget be balanced. That’s all it’s doing, while it’s void of anything to really support affordability for the people here.

When you look at raising taxes, one of the things that people haven’t really caught on to yet…. You know, it’s only been a day. It takes a while for people to digest the information and read the document as it goes through it, because they know they won’t hear too much until we get into estimates.

We’re looking forward to that, where we actually get to go a bit more line item by line item and give the ministers and the government the opportunity to explain all of these tax increases and how increasing somebody’s carbon tax or personal taxes and scaring businesses out of B.C. is beneficial. But they’ll have that opportunity.

At the same time, it’s okay. They’re raising the debt in the province of British Columbia by 2022-23 to almost $88 billion — $88 billion. But you know what’s really depressing? It’s the fact that when you look through the budget document, it’s void of almost anything of substance that they’re actually building. So I’m still trying to figure out where this whole thing is going to go.

As the member from Kamloops before read out, on the transportation side, the only new project that the NDP can point to that they’ve initiated is replacing a four-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge, the Pattullo. They forget to talk about the fact that we would be almost halfway through construction on the replacement of the George Massey with a massive bridge that would help stop the congestion that we have right now in that area.

Let’s forget about doing things that are actually going to help the people get around the province, especially in the Lower Mainland. They talk about all these things that they want to achieve, but yet in the budget, there’s nothing there of substance to follow it up.

[5:20 p.m.]

I talked earlier about the broken promises that this government has successfully achieved. It’s one of the things that I will agree on with most people. You’re right. A lot of the things that are missing in the budget are the promises that were made and never kept. They’re not in the budget at all. Taxes are going up. In fact, if they really wanted to do something to help grow British Columbia, they could start with helping the group that I mentioned at the very beginning of my speech today: small business.

We talk about — nobody wants to argue the fact, because it’s true — the impact that small business has, in the province of British Columbia, on employment, on our economy. The recent survey and study show that 64 percent of small businesses are having a harder time now, under an NDP government, because of all of the red tape and the increased taxes that they’re facing. How many of them are going to be around after 12 more months? We hope all of them. But they’re actually out there right now — 64 percent of them — saying that this is tough.

I know that in a community like mine and of so many colleagues in rural B.C., we have a small number in our small communities, but they are the important part of our communities. Again, they’re small business, and they’re struggling. If you lose one or two small businesses in a small downtown core in a community, that is devastating. It’s devastating to employment, it’s devastating to the life of that community, and it creates a ripple effect of uncertainty.

I’ll finish, as I see my time running out, with just saying how surprised I was yesterday to listen to the Green Party, which has only two members — the rules were changed, and they’re still a party in this House — complain, almost ad nauseam, about the budget: how horrible it was, all the things they hated about it. Then they come into the House today and say: “But don’t worry. The last thing we want to do is to take down this government. Even though we said how horrible most of it is, we’re going to vote in favour of it.”

People should be able to stand in this House and actually vote their conscience and vote for what their constituents are saying. I guarantee you that those Green members would be hearing, if they were listening to the people of British Columbia, that this budget is not beneficial and that it’s not helping them. It’s absolutely a shame that you’ll have two people that will continue to prop up a government, just to keep their jobs here, rather than actually doing what the people of British Columbia want: to speak out against a budget that’s not making life more affordable.

It’s making it harder for the people in British Columbia to stay living here. It’s making it harder for companies to invest here. It’s creating continued uncertainty. It’s something that’s going to continue to see the demise of so many businesses and opportunities in the province of B.C., which does nothing at all for the affordability that this government continues to try to tout as a catchphrase, as the be-all of what they’re trying to accomplish. In fact, they’re doing the complete opposite, with all the increased taxes and the uncertainty they’re creating.

Thank you very much for the time that I’ve been given.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to be able to stand and speak in favour of Budget 2020. I think it’s a reasonable plan forward. I think it meets the needs of our province. It may not have all the shiny things that the opposition wants to see in it, but I think it’s a very important piece of work that reflects the priorities of our province. Unfortunately, they clearly don’t align with the priorities of the opposition, and maybe that’s self-explanatory.

Now, obviously, we all want to see what we would like in the budget. We all have our preferences as to what we think the budget should address. I think in every one of our constituencies, we have things that we would have loved to have seen funded. Whether we’re on the government side, the opposition side, the Third Party side or the independent side, we all have hopes and wishes for our constituents. We have to go through the same process as anyone.

[5:25 p.m.]

I think that when we talk about important infrastructure, the choices that government makes are important. They reflect their priorities. Governments don’t suddenly stop every project when another government is elected. Clearly, we continued on a number of projects that were started by the members who are in opposition. We continue to fund and to see them go through the process of being built.

I don’t see a big issue. I don’t think that’s necessarily a criticism, even though we heard, in the last number of hours, members criticizing the government for continuing projects they say they started. If they were good projects and they were worthy of being built, then I don’t see why that’s necessarily a reason to be critical of government. I think it’s a good idea. I like to see more cooperation and discussion anyway.

I think, obviously, we have differences of opinion, in terms of how we spend the revenue that the province collects. Whether it’s through resource extraction or whether it’s through taxation, our responsibility as government is to be prudent and to allocate those funds appropriately as we see fit, as we have said to the people of the province that we would, and to continue on with the plans that we already started 2½ years ago.

I think we saw budgets that spoke to long-term planning, spoke to our record investment in social programs, the likes we haven’t seen in many, many years, including addressing homelessness issues, affordability issues, the child care crisis and poverty — a number of priorities that were not the priorities of the previous government but are the priorities of the current government. I think that the steps that we took in Budget 2020 are going to serve us well in fulfilling those expectations, not only the expectations of British Columbians but to fulfil the commitments that we have made as members of the government caucus and as government.

We’re investing in new roads. We’re investing in new hospitals and schools and child care centres. We’re investing in services for people where they need them, and we’ve made a lot of progress.

The overall goal of our government, and I hope it’s shared by the members of the opposition, is to try to make British Columbia more affordable. The cost of living is high. We see a number of steps that our government has taken to address some of the affordability issues. In my riding, ferry fares were reduced by 15 percent on all four of the routes. In fact, I think that in 2017, the fares went back down to 2008 levels.

The previous government.… I understand their role in opposition is to be critical and to find things to criticize. I know it’s very difficult, as we’ve witnessed in question period, to find things to criticize government about. But we’ve made commitments, and we’re fulfilling those commitments. I think this is the most clear example of how our continued investment in infrastructure is going to serve our communities well. I’m pleased to be able to outline a few of those things.

Now, after the budget was tabled, I noticed that many people started talking about the sugary drinks, the tax on sugary drinks. I’ve heard members of the opposition side criticize our government’s approach to addressing issues around health and, clearly, health of children, who are the largest consumers of sugary carbonated drinks.

Now, I would like to point out to the members who have spoken against this that this was a unanimous recommendation of the Finance Committee, which is made up of members of the government, the opposition and the Third Party. We travel around the province, and we solicit input from residents, from constituents in geographically diverse locations. We do that in June in preparation for future budgets.

Repeatedly we’ve been asked, with evidence to prove why it would be a good idea, for our government to actually remove the exemption that exists for sugary carbonated drinks. So they will characterize it in the way that works for their political advantage, but I’d like to characterize that as the removal of an exemption on a particular taxation.

[5:30 p.m.]

That’s splitting hairs. But it was singularly mocked, it seems to me, by members opposite, who may not know that not only was the sugary drink tax recommended by the all-party Finance Committee seven years in a row, but it was implemented because of the evidence provided and the evidence that shows the positive health impacts on communities when certain costs are higher on unhealthy products.

The previous member — I won’t even say what riding he’s from — mentioned: “Where else do they do this? What kind of place is this where we’re going to be the only place in the world with a sugary drink…? Who wants this anyway?” My answer is: we all called for it. The province is going to be better off for it. It’s a health initiative as much as anything.

Countries such as France, South Africa, Ireland, India, Denmark, Hungary, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Thailand — might have noticed in Thailand — and the United Kingdom all have taxes of some form on sugary drinks. So the member stands corrected. I understand. He likely withdraws his comments with respect….

I would point out that the member for Prince George–​Valemount said: “Let’s not talk about the health effects of this tax. Let’s just talk about….”

Interjections.

N. Simons: She did. She purposely…. Skilful avoidance, I call it. It kind of made me smile, but I understand. If I were on that side…. It’s their job. They’re all worried about their soft drink fix. Their soft drink fix is coming up.

Well, I think it’s important to say that governments should really base their policies on evidence. I think that the evidence in this particular case suggests that it would be better for us all if young people didn’t consume so much of sugary carbonated drinks. If we can cut down on the consumption of sugary carbonated drinks, we will have an impact on young people’s long-term health.

The opposition is now suggesting new taxes for the government to consider. The member for somewhere out in the valley, somewhere out there, said maybe fatty foods. Well, how about high-sodium foods? Because there are jurisdictions that do have a tax.

We’re kind of making light on this, but the truth is that young people consuming less sugar will reduce childhood obesity. It’ll reduce type 2 diabetes. The Heart and Stroke Foundation, British Columbia division…. If you need any supporters for your position, you’re not going to find them at the Heart and Stroke Foundation. You’re not going to find them at the Childhood Obesity Foundation. You won’t find it at the Dietitians of Canada. They are all saying that this is a good move on the part of government.

I would say that every recommendation that the Finance Committee makes when we work together is a good recommendation. It’s not up to me to implement them all, but I’m pleased to see this very key recommendation followed through on. I think other jurisdictions in Canada, if they have not already, will likely follow suit, because the health impacts of unhealthy food….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Just say no. I think we’re having a new version of that over on the other side of the House. It’s not just….

The previous government would do that themselves. They realize that behaviours are modified or changed based on a number of factors. I think perhaps some of the revenue from the elimination of this particular tax exemption maybe should be going towards promoting healthy food. Maybe it should be going towards promoting….

That is why I find this chamber so full of cooperation and coming together and consensus-building. I find it’s a remarkable thing on a Wednesday afternoon that we’re actually thinking about policy, and we’re thinking about ways of making things better for British Columbians.

[5:35 p.m.]

Yes, in fact, perhaps that’s another angle, and members might be less inclined to be vehemently against this sugary drink tax if they think that perhaps we have other….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Thank you. Don’t throw me off, Member. Don’t throw me off.

Okay. Here’s the other tax that members from the opposition don’t necessarily talk about or when they do…. To be fair, the idea of taxing the 1 percent, the highest income earners in the province — and I’m looking at a few of them, perhaps — would…. I think we’ve heard from that sector, in fact, that they’re not averse to a higher taxation rate.

We’re talking about people who are, ultimately, very rich and making a lot of money. I think that in our society, in beautiful British Columbia, where we have very high income inequality and a lot of gaps in services that have developed over a number of years, investment in services and programs for people will benefit us all. The investment in child care will benefit us all, whether we have children or not. The investment in seniors care will benefit us all, whether we have aging parents or people in our communities that we are close to.

We have to invest in programs and services that serve our communities now and into the future. That’s why I believe the continued investment in child care is such an important and integral part of the future of this province. I think that anyone who has worked with children, who has had children or who was a child probably knows that when you’re healthy and when you’re supported and when you’re safe, you are probably more likely to succeed in life and to fulfil the expectations you have for yourself and the expectations that your family has for you.

Partly an economic initiative, partly a social initiative — providing child care to families throughout the province meets so many needs. It allows people to re-enter the workforce, and it allows young children to be exposed to quality and skilled child care workers — if they would like it, if they need it, if it’s important to them. I think that having that available is an important reflection of the values of our province.

Ultimately, that’s what we see in a throne speech and in a budget speech. As much as in this place we show how different they are from each other…. We’ve already seen that some of the projects we’re doing are continuations of the previous government’s initiatives and some are brand-new. The differences aren’t as great as sometimes we like to characterize them.

My expectation is that the revenue that is garnered from the increase in the tax on the 1 percent, for people who are making over 200-and-something-thousand dollars a year, will benefit our community as a whole. It will go towards improving infrastructure, which we are making record investments in. It will go to ensuring that our school system is as good as it has been and continues to be. It will make sure that resources are available to ensure that children are safe in their homes. It will go towards helping to pay for grants to allow young people to attend post-secondary, whether it’s diploma programs, trades programs or post-secondary.

One of the highlights to me — and something that will benefit young people throughout the province, in my constituency and beyond — is the new access grant. Young people have been asking the Finance Committee and others to implement a grant program that addresses some of their needs. It doesn’t completely address all young peoples’ needs in terms of tuition and living expenses, but I think it’s better than the completion grant. That’s what we heard, as a Finance Committee travelling around the province. As I said, the non-partisan, or the all-party, committee heard that from a broad cross-section of presenters.

[5:40 p.m.]

I hope that our focus and our attention on the education system reflects all British Columbians’ interest in having an educated population, and a subset of that is an educated workforce. Both those things are important to us as a society. So I’m very pleased about the investment in student grants. I think that’s something that wasn’t talked about by anybody on the opposition side, and that’s understandable. They’ll talk about the things that they think are problematic. And I will point out, so far they’ve talked mostly about the sugary drinks tax, constantly.

I understand it; it’s a bit of their narrative. But this idea, this false premise that British Columbians have somehow a higher burden…. I don’t like to use the word “burden” when it comes to taxation. Burden seems to be something that we don’t want. The tax system pays for our policing, pays for our correctional services, pays for our streets, pays for our school buses. It pays for the things that we have in our communities that make our communities function. It is an essential part. Government expenditure is an essential part of community.

We’re rebuilding courthouses. We’re building in communities around the province that serve rural communities, that allow for jobs to exist in rural communities. That’s what we are trying to do: create the conditions. You know, obviously, everything in our economy is not always up to us. There are external factors at play.

Let me just quote from page 129 of the budget, Table A4.1, the net provincial taxes since Budget 2016. I’m not going to improvise on these numbers. I’m not going to play notes that aren’t in the score here. What I notice is that net provincial taxes have gone down.

I mean, I recommend this document for my friends on the other side. It’s called the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2020-21–2022-23. I’m sure members opposite are familiar with it. It’s A Stronger B.C. for Everyone: Budget 2020. I’m looking at Table A4.1, net provincial taxes, just like…. I’m looking at these graphs. It says 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, and the number in 2016 is higher than the number now. To me, that looks like a decrease, you know.

Hey, I stand to be corrected, but I just want to say that when people are sort of laughing or pointing fingers at us as if we are somehow interested in making life expensive, we’re not. We’re making life less expensive. We’re making life more affordable. And that’s just the black-and-white statistics that I look at when I’m hearing the opposite come from members of the opposition. But members of the opposition shouldn’t be saying things that are the opposite of what is real, and that, unfortunately, is what I was hearing.

I don’t want to dwell on this idea of taxation. I don’t want to make a defence of something that needs no defending, but we have a system in place where government chooses the priorities, and its priorities are to ensure that British Columbians, as a society, as a province, have the services that they need, that British Columbia is a good place to live, that we live in conditions that are helpful to us, helpful to our families and helpful to businesses. As a member of this place who represents a rural area, I think that the concern around rural investment has been addressed in large part, but it’s part of a longer process.

[5:45 p.m.]

The economy changes because of external factors like the price of commodities, trade uncertainty, labour costs too. Sure. But I think, on balance, our province has taken the important steps towards addressing some of the key issues that we’re facing.

British Columbia is in a good fiscal situation. Our employment rate is good. We have good growth numbers. I think, in fact, that some would suggest we were too conservative with our budget in terms of what we could have been investing in. I’ve heard from people in the disability community who would have liked to see an increase in disability rates. I’m hoping that we continue to buttress our place here, continue to build on the strengths that we have, and that we’ll be able to do that.

I think that we hear that, and we recognize that and hope that other efforts that we’re making will address some of the concerns. Earning exemptions have gone up. We’re doing a lot in terms of providing homes for people without homes and services for people who need them. Our health care investments, I think, are remarkable.

I don’t want to miss anything. I know you guys don’t want me to miss anything either.

Well, let’s talk about the child opportunity benefit. I think about families again. Here we are, back to that cornerstone of our policy. If families and young kids are strong and supported, then the rest of our communities will be healthy as well. The tax-free benefit of up to $1,600 a year for families with one child and up to $2,600 for families with two children — that’s a good chunk of money.

I can tell you this. For the families that I used to work with and for the families that I know now who have trouble, sometimes, making ends meet, this is an important investment. This is a significant amount of money that will go a long way towards making their life better. That, in addition to the elimination of MSP for others, I think are two examples of where we’ve lowered the cost of living for people in this province. Not to mention the fact that we have…. Comparatively speaking, looking at other provinces, our tax rate is lower than most other provinces.

The facts say something. The opposition says something else. But I get it. I get it. I just think that this budget is deserving of support. This budget may not be as flashy as they would have liked. I think there are some very important investments that we’ve identified. Maybe some of them will change their minds when they realize that we’re not the only place that thinks about taxing sugary drinks.

Our continued investment in CleanBC, which is North America’s best program, or best government policy to address climate change…. We’re continuing investment in that important CleanBC program, bringing it to $1.3 billion over four years. Our CleanBC program for industry will reduce emissions by 2.5 million tonnes of CO₂.

Budget 2020 also adds $106 million over three years in capital funding for schools, universities and hospitals to improve energy efficiency. When you go down into the details of a budget, and you find numbers like $106 million, it may not be the headline in the newspaper. It may not be the top-of-mind issue for the reporters. But these are numerous investments that, spread across the board, add up to a significant investment. So I’m pleased that we’re…. We said we would. These are jobs that are going to be in communities around the province. People are going to be hired to do retrofits. Those are jobs. Those are important jobs.

[5:50 p.m.]

We’re extending another $32 million to make it more affordable for people to buy electric vehicles. We’re well ahead of our projected targets for the sale of electric vehicles. There’s just too much in it, actually, for me to itemize it all.

Sharing revenue with First Nations communities. I worked for a long time with a First Nation, the shíshálh Nation. You know, all the initiatives that we see put forward will benefit communities throughout the province. Investment in housing, as they say, “on reserve” is just an essential investment, one that I wish had been put in place many years ago. Overcrowding in communities has consequences that are beyond just the social consequences. There are health consequences. There are consequences for children that are sometimes not measurable.

When we invest in homes and housing, we’re doing more than just giving people a place to live. It’s an opportunity for people, for families to live in a secure environment and to increase the opportunity for their young people, for their children, to succeed.

The e-commerce tax — it was referred to as Netflix, but it’s not just Netflix — is simply closing a loophole. B.C. businesses are collecting provincial sales tax on goods and services. Companies that don’t, should. I think that we will benefit from…. It would otherwise be an unfair playing field or an uneven playing field for businesses that provide services in British Columbia but don’t pay taxes here.

Anyway, I believe Budget 2020 goes a long way towards not just continuing our commitments from previous budgets and previous throne speeches but goes a long way towards making British Columbia more affordable. I look forward to hearing some positive comments from members of the opposition.

M. Morris: I’ve been listening, and I read through the budget. It’s a major disappointment for the taxpayers of British Columbia. I’m going to get into a few things with respect to the budget, particularly the part that relates to my critic role, Public Safety.

I want to talk a little bit about my riding first and the impacts, perhaps, that this budget has had or the lack of attention that this budget and this government have been paying to areas like the Prince George–Mackenzie area.

Prince George. The timber supply area is the largest timber supply area in the province. It’s been logged for the past 60 years or more. It supported generations of families that are still in the logging industry, and the lumber industry has provided a good living for most of the folks there.

Mackenzie is the third-largest timber supply area in the province. Mackenzie had a pretty good future in front of it, which has diminished somewhat. I’ll explain that as I go along here. But Mackenzie was created upon the completion of the W.A.C. Bennett dam in 1968 and the creation of the Williston reservoir, over 200 kilometres long. It provided opportunities to bring timber into Mackenzie and process it. There was a rail link brought into Mackenzie at that time to enable the shipping of the products that we have there.

[5:55 p.m.]

It coincided with an increase right across British Columbia in the annual allowable cut. We had nine pulp mills created during the ’60s. Three of them were in Prince George and a couple of them were in Mackenzie and provided good employment opportunities for the folks in the area there.

As of late, over the last couple of years, we’ve had pellet plants established in the Prince George area. We’ve had a bioenergy plant built in Mackenzie. It has provided some significant opportunities for us. But the impacts to forestry that we see right across the province in this transition that we’re facing, for a number of particular reasons…. It has hit Mackenzie hard. My heart goes out to all the families in Mackenzie that have been impacted from the closures, permanent closures, by the curtailments and all of the other spinoff effects as a result of this downturn in the forest sector.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

It has happened in Prince George. It has happened in the Quesnel area. It has happened on the Island. It has happened right across this province here. But Mackenzie is a forestry town, for the most part.

The first significant impact we saw started occurring in the late 1990s, early into the 2000s. It was the pine beetle epidemic that just pretty much demolished a lot of the pine that we had in the central Interior part of the province. Of course, it impacted…. The pine that was planted in the ’70s and the ’80s also fell victim to the pine beetle as well. So we lost a lot of that new growth that was coming on that would be part of the future timber supply that we would be having in the Interior of the province.

We have seen another significant impact from the spruce beetle, in my riding in particular, but it’s through­out other areas of the province. The spruce beetle has killed approximately a million hectares of timber in my riding — a million hectares. That’s a lot of wood. It’s all mature spruce that is a valuable component of the mid-term timber supply area for Mackenzie and for Prince George and other regions.

Now, the pine beetle came along and devastated the pine, but the pine stood for many, many years — maybe 20 years, in some cases, or more. The shelf life was significant enough that mills and operators were still able to make a significant dollar from manufacturing the pine. Spruce is a different story. The spruce is standing there. It still looks like a magnificent tree, even though it’s dead. They cut it down. They don’t realize until they start putting it through the mill that it’s got…. They call it diesel stain, but it’s little pieces of rot that start showing up in the board. It devalues the wood by about $250 a 1,000 — or more, in some cases.

As a result of that, a lot of the companies are very reluctant to put the extra effort and expense into going after the dead spruce. It’s in remote areas of the province for the most part, and it’s causing a significant expense for companies to go and retrieve this kind of wood and bring it in for remanufacturing.

In addition, Mackenzie suffered a downturn in the 2009 softwood lumber issue that we had right across North America. Mackenzie lost about half its population. It went from over 6,000 people down to perhaps 3,000. I think it’s sitting somewhere around 3,200 people right now. It’s never fully recovered from that.

It was only through the efforts of my predecessor, Pat Bell, and the government of the day that we had that we were able to get Mackenzie up and running again to any great extent. We got the mills running. We got the pulp mill up and running again. Things have been progressing quite well in Mackenzie. Everybody was employed. The unemployment level was pretty minimal in Mackenzie itself. It was operating on all cylinders until this recent downturn in the forest sector. We had a permanent mill closure. We’ve had curtailments there, and it’s affected the livelihood of everybody in that particular community.

The other aspect that affects Mackenzie…. Because it’s on the Williston reservoir, its operations depend on the reservoir staying at a high enough level that the logs can be brought down from the upper ends of Williston Lake and brought into the sawmills and that the city can function with its water systems. Of course, with the increase in demand for power in the Lower Mainland, Williston reservoir provides 30 percent of the power for British Columbia. As a result of the water table there and the demand for power in the Lower Mainland, oftentimes Mackenzie is right on the brink of having to shut down because of the water level in the Williston reservoir. So there are a number of factors affecting that.

[6:00 p.m.]

Now, part of the mitigating thing — issues that we have in Mackenzie right now that are helping out to a degree — is the fact that we have Mount Milligan, which is not too far away from Mackenzie. It’s a copper-gold mine that employs about 450 people, and a lot of the residents of Mackenzie are working in that facility. There are a lot of residents in Mackenzie that are working on Site C, which is another project that the government had significant trouble agreeing to and making that move forward.

The Coastal GasLink project that has been in the news for a while now…. There are a number of people from Mackenzie that are out of work from the forest sector that have been able to pick up work with the Coastal GasLink project, which travels between Prince George and Mackenzie. Of course, the LNG Canada project that we have in Kitimat…. A number of folks are travelling there.

It’s a pretty resilient community overall, and I’m pretty impressed with the attitude of the folks there. It’s a great little community. The folks really do their best to try and make the best of the situation that they’re in.

It’s the diversified resource sector that is filling in the blanks. The resource sector that we have in British Columbia is second to none. We have so many opportunities in B.C. through mining, oil and gas, forestry and agriculture — a number of different areas here.

A lot of people have taken advantage of that. McLeod Lake Indian Band, for example, which is in the Mackenzie area, has a company, Duz Cho Forest Products, that employs a lot of their band members and a lot of people from around the community. Duz Cho Logging, Duz Cho Construction have contracts with Mount Milligan. They’re also working on the Coastal GasLink project. They keep their band members fully employed. They’ve got some great economic opportunities up there.

There is another opportunity that’s available in British Columbia that hasn’t had any recognition from this government yet. To me, I would have thought that the budget or the throne speech would have spoken to this issue where we see the downturn in forestry — it’s nothing new — and that this government would be pursuing vigorously other opportunities within the resource sector to provide employment opportunities for those displaced from the forest sector.

There is a proponent that’s talking about putting a straddle plant over the natural gas pipeline that we have in Prince George and north of Prince George. That straddle plant will extract liquids — propane, butane and other liquids — that are in the natural gas and market them separately. I understand there’s at least $1 million a day or more of profits that can be made from the liquids that are in the natural gas already. Right now, it comes down, it’s distributed throughout the province, and it’s burned. All those liquids are being burned every time our furnace comes on or we cook with natural gas in the house.

I think this is an excellent opportunity to start looking at the establishment of a petrochemical industry in British Columbia that will fill the gap of whatever is left behind in the forest sector as we go through this transition down the road. This is supposed to create about 1,000 person employment opportunities — permanent jobs for the life of the Montney gas play, I suppose, which is predicted to be 100 to 150 years.

There’s nothing in the budget to indicate that government even recognizes these opportunities — nothing. There’s nothing in this budget that offers solutions to the families of the forest workers impacted by the forestry downturn.

They’ve hijacked the rural dividend fund. That was making a real difference to Mackenzie. Actually, Mackenzie was benefiting from the rural dividend fund, as were several other communities throughout the province, here. They didn’t think that it’s important enough, with our beleaguered forest sector the way it is, to dedicate new funds to help these families out and help them through this transition period that we have. So I think that’s shameful and that the government should be pursuing these types of opportunities.

[6:05 p.m.]

Again, I have to, going through the budget…. There was nothing in the budget that indicated that government was seeking new revenue sources to support the programs that they have in place other than taxation. That’s been talked about by my colleagues already. They’ve spoken about it quite eloquently, and I’m sure my colleagues following will speak about that. But I think it’s quite disgraceful.

I want to talk about…. I’ve got my note here. The title of the budget was: “A stronger B.C., for everyone.” I just wonder what B.C. taxpayers think of that when they look at the additional taxes that we have or that the government has imposed on them, other than the taxes that were imposed in the previous budgets. I think we’re up to 24 new taxes now since the NDP took government. Now they’re taxing…. It’s the not-so-sweet sugar tax. They’re taxing your Netflix coming in if your kids want to sit there and watch a movie on TV, or a hockey game or something like that.

Of course, the added income tax burden that we see coming in is probably going to be a decision-maker for a lot of the high-tech professionals, a lot of the specialists and a lot of the engineers that we see and that we need in this province. I think they’re going to take a second look and say: “I think I’d rather live down across the line in Washington or in some other province than be faced with the significant impacts to my income here in British Columbia.”

I want to talk a little bit about Prince George and the state of our hospital. We have the University Hospital of Northern B.C. It’s a regional hospital, and it suffers from the 1990s NDP government, believe it or not. In the 1990s, a plan was put forward to rebuild the Prince George hospital. Only the NDP government could do this, in my estimation. They took a 400-bed hospital and turned it into a 200-bed hospital, and we have half the capacity.

It’s a regional hospital. It’s a training hospital with the northern medical program, and we don’t have the capacity to deal with it. We have 1950s-vintage operating rooms that are too small to accommodate the modern technology and the modern equipment that the doctors and the surgeons need in order to perform the surgeries that they need.

We are the only health authority in British Columbia that doesn’t have any cardiac services. The Northern Health Authority covers 80 percent of the province, and we are the only one without cardiac services. As a result of that, last year alone we had over 1,500 medevacs from Prince George down to a Vancouver hospital to perform cardiac services on these patients. We’ve heard many, many times from professionals, from doctors and from the medical profession that if we don’t get critical care, if we don’t have the immediate care for patients suffering from stroke and heart attack, their chances of surviving diminish the longer that period takes.

From personal experience, my mother-in-law had a heart attack a few years ago, and she sat in the hospital in Prince George waiting for six days before she was able to be medevacked down to Vancouver to have the necessary stents and work done on her at that particular time. We’ve got other, horrendous cases up in Prince George, in the hospital, that have gone on for far, far too long.

I got a letter that I’d like to read, from a nurse in the Prince George hospital. I appreciate her sending it in. Between my colleague from Prince George–Valemount and myself, we’ve had several letters from nurses that are very, very concerned about the state of affairs there. She writes:

“Good afternoon. I’m writing to you all, as the University Hospital of Northern B.C. is in a crisis. I have worked as a nurse for 15 years, and this is the worst I’ve ever witnessed.

“There are hallway patients everywhere. Places that aren’t supposed to hold patients now are. One bathroom for eight, six patients — this is unacceptable. We’re housing numerous senior citizens in places where there are no activities — just a hallway with a TV — because patients have overtaken our lounges, and the care homes have no room. Some of them are sleeping on a stretcher for days in a hallway. I dare any youthful person to try this. These are the people who built this province and worked their whole lives here, and this is how we treat them. Shame.

“Patients are waiting for weeks on end to fly to Vancouver for heart procedures. Just because we live in the north, it shouldn’t mean we have a higher rate of dying, but unfortunately, we do. We, the nurses, are doing the very best we can to give all patients good, safe care, but I feel we are failing.

[6:10 p.m.]

“I went into nursing thinking I was going to make a difference, but the health care system has let me down. I cry on the way home after my shifts, thinking of the trauma that patients have endured. I’m shouting out for help, and no one is listening. I’m frustrated, angry and deeply disappointed.

“I’m a seasoned nurse, and let me tell you: the newer staff are struggling. This is all so heartbreaking. If we continue this way, the worldwide nursing shortage — which states we will be short 7.8 million nurses globally in the year 2030 — will be even shorter. Prince George and UHNBC are the hub of the north. We take care of many surrounding areas, but we’re falling short, letting many people down. We need senior housing, acute care beds, a cardiac lab and a surgical tower.

“I’ve spoken with the Health Minister when he was up announcing the primary care centre opening — at which he failed to tell the public the walk-in clinic would be closed — and he said: “Oh, you wait. The announcement for the tower is coming.” Well, I say b.s. Even if it’s announced tomorrow, it will take years to get to the build, and meanwhile, we suffer up in the north. Shame, shame, shame.

“Sincerely, a frustrated, helpless nurse.”

Again, I say that that is one of dozens of letters that we get from concerned nurses and other health care practitioners in the Northern Health area. It’s something that severely needs to be addressed, post-haste.

The other thing that caught my attention in the budget was dirty money in real estate. I’ve heard the member opposite, the government members — the Attorney General, particularly — talk about this on occasion. It appears he’s going to once again have the opportunity to team up with some dime-store crime novelist to pontificate and repeat his allegations again about money laundering throughout the province and how bad the situation is.

For three years, we’ve heard him talk about this — three years claiming to have intimate knowledge of who might be perpetuating these crimes. We don’t see any prosecutions. Three years of nothing but pointing fingers at other people. Three years of ignoring the ability of his government, which could at any time add whatever number of resources to this problem — at any time they want.

If they want to put 50 more policemen into it, if they want to hire forensic accountants to go into that to help the police out, they can do that any time they want. Instead, we’ve had three years of finger-shaking and pointing his finger across the aisle over at us, saying that we didn’t do enough. So let me talk about what was done.

I have to say that this doesn’t appear to be a high priority for this government, because there’s no mention in the budget of any more additional resources for money laundering — zero over the next three years. Does it demonstrate that this government doesn’t consider money laundering to be that high a priority over all the other issues that they’re dealing with? Let me talk about the resources — a review, just so that government is aware of what has taken place over the years.

It was our government that created the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit back in 2004. At that particular time, we integrated 14 separate law enforcement agencies in the province, including the RCMP and the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia. By 2009, they were operational. Their job was to combat organized crime and all of the criminal activities that were involved with organized crime in the province. We put $70 million a year into that unit, of provincial money, to fund — organized crime, gangs and all the associated crime that was associated with that.

Then, in 2015, when I was the minister responsible for Public Safety, we put another $24 million into CFSEU to combat organized crime, gangs and guns. In 2016, we put additional resources in there to provide a couple of teams to address illegal gaming at the time, as well. So there have been significant dollars put into it. I’m estimating that by the time government changed in 2017, we were probably spending more than $90 million a year on guns and gangs and organized crime.

[6:15 p.m.]

I often wonder, when I hear the Attorney pontificating about organized crime, if he honestly believed that CFSEU members, in conducting their investigations, would ignore any money laundering they came across. “Well, that’s money laundering; I’m not going to pay attention to that,” and they’ll carry on with their investigations.

I wonder if the Attorney has ever looked at the proceeds of crime or the civil forfeiture office to see how many millions of dollars annually the civil forfeiture office puts into the victims of crime offices around the country to help them out.

How many homes have been seized through the civil forfeiture office and sold — homes that were obtained with dirty money? How many cars? How many other types of assets, aircraft and things like that, have been seized as a result of these in-depth, complicated criminal investigations that involve dirty money? It was something that has never been ignored by any police agency in the province.

The fact that there haven’t been any prosecutions in recent times…. You know, there was some controversy a couple of years ago about some information that was leaked and that compromised the integrity of the prosecution, and the charges were stayed. These are very sensitive kinds of investigations, international investigations. I know the RCMP and CFSEU put millions of dollars into a couple of these investigations to try and thwart the organizations and the dirty money that was being laundered through them at the time.

It’s also interesting to note that the Attorney, in the information that he was using…. The only way he got that information was from police investigations. You know, it wasn’t secret information. It was information that was obtained through the criminal investigations that were being conducted by the RCMP or CFSEU. The pictures of the hockey bags full of money were compliments of the police and compliments of the investigations that were going on.

It’s something that I think the Attorney General probably needs to take a closer look at. Again, if this is such a high-risk area for this government to look at, I’m amazed that they haven’t put another 20, 30, 40 or 50 resources into that unit to combat the dirty-money issue if it is out of hand and out of control like that.

Well, the budget mentions another $23 million — allocated $8 million a year, roughly — “for other public safety and crime prevention programs, including police services and First Nations policing for rural communities, resources to implement the Witness Security Act, surveillance and supervision services and increased resources for coroner postmortem diagnostic services,” etc. That’s quite a lengthy sentence there, but $23 million evaporates. I think that by the time I got to the end of the sentence, that $23 million evaporated. It doesn’t go very far when you talk about the significant services that these areas provide our province.

I dug a little deeper into that. I’ve been concerned about the core policing resources in the province for years. I’ve brought that up in estimates in the past. There’s about $4½ million that’s going directly into the police services part of this. On the $4½ million, I’m hopeful that it might translate into additional places for rural British Columbia, which is so sorely needing additional police resources. When you have places like Vanderhoof and other communities in the province with significantly high provincial crime rates, police officers are burning out because they’re overworked and their workload is continually high.

If we look at that $4½ million, that translates roughly into about 25 or 30 new policing positions. Now, they underfund the provincial side of policing in the province here. I think there are about 100 vacancies attributable to lack of funding, under the contract cap, which the province could turn around. That’s where the resources could have come from for the Attorney General to plug them into a dirty-money unit or any other aspect of policing.

[6:20 p.m.]

I’m going to be watching this very carefully, because I’ve seen it in the past, where shell games are played, and they might take $4.5 million out of one part of the Public Safety budget and slide it over into another part.

I go back again to my past. It’s where my suspicion arises. I was a senior manager with the RCMP. My area of responsibility…. I was in charge of all the policing in the northern 80 percent of the province, and a pretty significant budget to accommodate that. I noticed it in 1997, 1998 and every year right through until the change of government in 2001. The NDP government would give us our budgets. A very meagre budget, but we accepted it. You take what you’re given when you’re in a government agency like that.

We’d get the budget in March, and by May or June, after you’ve already allocated it all out to the 42 or 45 detachments, the specialized units I had, the aircraft we had in a couple of different locations and our patrol vessels and all the units that use that money, the province would come back and say: “We’re going to claw back 2 percent. We’re going to claw back 5 percent.” And you’d have to cut back the services that you provide to the public.

Oftentimes we had to park police cars. We had to keep our airplanes on the ground. We had to slow down some of the investigations that we had because we didn’t have the resources to put into them at that particular time. So I’m suspicious about that.

It didn’t happen to just the RCMP provincial budget line. It also affected the Coroners Service. It affected emergency management B.C. It affected a number of other public safety components that we had in the province.

I’m looking at this, the $4.5 million going into the provincial policing line. I know that they’re already facing a $10 million deficit for this year, $6 million of that as the result of the employer health tax. They get a $4.5 million increase for rural policing or First Nations policing. That will disappear in a heartbeat. That’ll be gone in no time. And I’m wondering whether that deficit is going to increase for 2020-2021.

The RCMP do a tremendous job in trying to curb the domestic violence, the sexual abuse, the issues in rural British Columbia and policing our many First Nations communities that we have. There’s a cost to doing that, and oftentimes that cost is ignored by the province.

We see this budget. It ignores the resource sector. It ignores any opportunity to generate revenue other than through these tax increases that we have. There is nothing there to stimulate the economy. Is it a coincidence that these new taxes offset whatever the surpluses might be over the next two to three years? I don’t think so. I think that’s the only way they understand how to develop any kind of a razor-edged surplus on a $60 billion budget. This is pretty ridiculous.

I certainly won’t be supporting this budget, and I don’t think the B.C. taxpayers would either if they had the opportunity.

Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to begin today by acknowledging that we are on the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-​speaking people, including the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I’m very pleased to be here today to talk in support of Budget 2020, which is focusing on the work our government is doing to make life more affordable for families and people all across B.C. and to create opportunities for those families and people.

People all across the province are starting to see important changes in their lives. They’re seeing that we’re investing in people. They’re seeing the investments in communities, and we’re ensuring that no one is left behind.

In my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, our government is providing new primary health care options for 18,000 people in the area without a primary care provider. This is going to be a huge difference for people in my community, as I know how hard it can be for people to find a family doctor. We’re opening a new urgent primary care centre for people to access every day from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. at the moment and soon to be 24 hours, 24-7.

[6:25 p.m.]

Our government is supporting students in the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows school district, who are the first in B.C. to have access to integrated mental health teams directly placed in the schools. This is such an amazing investment in our community. It means students and families are finally going to be getting the wraparound care that they need and a clear, easy path to understand access to these services right there in the schools, meeting students where they are and accessing the services where they need them.

Commuters in my community will also be benefiting from our government’s focus on people thanks to a $1.8 million investment in upgrades to Highway 7. For too long, we’ve heard the traffic stories of delays. We’ve heard the tragic stories of crashes along the stretch of Highway 7 between Maple Ridge and Mission. These upgrades will help make travel along this busy corridor better and safer.

We’re funding a new permanent home for the Ridge Meadows Child Development Centre after a flash flood. That freak hailstorm that happened in 2018 meant the program had to abandon its previous space. They now have a new location that we’re helping fund and are able to start providing services to the children and youth in our community who so desperately need it. This new facility is going to provide therapy, early intervention, respite services for children with special needs and, most importantly as well, for their families.

From affordability to service and a strong, sustainable economy, our government is fixing problems and making progress on things that matter most. Today people in B.C. will have more opportunities to participate in recreation, sports and culture. The previous government ignored our arts community, and our government understands that arts and culture are vital to resilience, vitality and the health of our communities.

Our significant investments through the B.C. Arts Council budget put it at a record high. The result is more grants for artists and organizations for diverse voices. B.C. has amazing artists from so many different cultures. They need access to funding to fuel their creativity and have their voices celebrated in our community — voices like the Royal Academy of Bhangra Society in Surrey. In September, the Bhangra Society got its first B.C. Arts Council grant.

Supporting organizations like the Royal Academy of Bhangra Society makes life better for people in our communities. I’m proud to support the Arts Council’s new strategic priorities to improve community arts, equity and diversity, because diversity is part of British Columbia’s identity and one of our province’s greatest strengths.

In B.C., we’re proud of our multicultural society, as it’s part of the reason that makes B.C. such an amazing place to live. Celebrating our diversity is how we learn from each other, how we build understanding and how we strengthen community ties. At a time when hate and intolerance is on the rise, our government is working to combat racism to keep people safe. Our government has renewed the human rights commission and created a provincewide anti-racism network to combat hate and prejudice.

Our Budget 2020 will fund Resilience B.C., which will support communities with tools and resources to better respond to hate, to help protect and celebrate the cultural diversity that makes us strong. This program is the result of a series of community dialogues led by the former Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Multiculturalism, the member for Delta North.

These meetings, which were held all across the province, explored community issues and experiences around racism and hate. Community leaders gave advice on how government could help build a safer, more inclusive province. We know there’s a lot of work to do, and Resilience B.C. will be the beginning of increased capacity in communities so that they can have training and education resources available to those who need them.

My ministry will also be enriching our communities by renewing our cultural institutions. Last year we held a public engagement on behalf of the Royal B.C. Museum. We wanted to preserve, protect and provide better access to the human and natural history collections of British Columbia. To start this process, we wanted to hear people’s ideas on how to modernize the museum experience.

[6:30 p.m.]

We held community sessions as well as a public online discussion forum. One important thing we heard was that we need to make sure we’re representing all of B.C.’s communities, especially our Indigenous peoples. Engaging with Indigenous peoples has been integral to the modernization process.

The Royal B.C. Museum is leading an in-depth and ongoing engagement with Indigenous peoples and communities. An Indigenous representative said they want to see a shift to a rights-based dialogue and understanding. They want to ensure the history and culture of our Indigenous peoples and communities, which are integral to our museum. We listened and are building that feedback into our business case, which is funded through our ministry, for the member opposite.

Last November we were proud to announce a $1 million grant to the city of Vancouver. That funding helped establish the project office and pocket gallery in Vancouver’s Chinatown. This will help people experience the history and stories of our Chinese community in B.C. Establishing this museum is part of our government’s efforts to pursue the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s, or UNESCO’s, World Heritage Site designation for Vancouver’s Chinatown.

I’m proud that we’re going to be building on our commitment to establish a Chinese-Canadian museum because the contributions of British Columbians of Chinese descent are essential to our province’s success and cultural richness. Our Chinese-Canadian museum reflects the enormous contributions of the community in B.C.

Again, Member, this is all funded through my ministry.

In the future, people from all across B.C. and visitors will be able to experience the stories of this community and the places where it happened.

These are just a few examples of how my ministry is working to make life better for everyone in B.C. We know that arts and culture support a healthier, more inclusive community.

I’d like to take a moment to talk about another area that helps bring communities together. We’re making it more affordable for families who otherwise struggle with financial requirements needed to have children and youth participate in sport. I am proud of the work our government has done to help families get ahead.

For example, last year we provided $2.5 million over two years as an investment in KidSport. That will increase participation for more than 1,000 children who are often underrepresented in sport, including children from low-income families and Indigenous children.

We’re giving people of all ages the ability to increase opportunities to get involved in fun, community-based sport programs with $1.2 million going towards over 80 programs in more than 60 communities in B.C. Programs such as culturally sensitive swimming opportunities here in Victoria for women and girls, for low-income families and for new Canadians. In Maple Ridge, my community, we’re funding a beginner curling program aimed at young girls and women that teaches teamwork, self-esteem, body positivity and staying physically active.

Our government’s commitment to making life more affordable was further evident in our budget speech. We’ve eliminated MSP premiums, saving families up to $1,800 a year. We continue to tackle the housing crisis so everyone in B.C. has safe, affordable places to call home. B.C. is on a path to universal child care, where every family has access to quality, affordable child care.

We’re improving our schools to give our kids a better start. We’re investing an extra $339 million to continue upgrading our schools, ensuring our kids get the supports they need in the classrooms.

We’re making a university and college education more affordable. The new B.C. access grant will help 40,000 low- and middle-income students get education and training with grants of up to $4,000.

I want to take a moment to just pause on that — how important this new access grant will be to low- and middle-income students. This is something that students from all across B.C. have been asking for, for years. They’ve constantly presented to government, and our government listened.

We’ll be providing students who are pursuing a two-year diploma or certificate program the opportunity now to access the grant. Again, $4,000 upfront to help with the costs of education, which can be prohibitive for students.

[6:35 p.m.]

I’m so proud of our government’s ability to listen to the students and provide relief. Again, this actually builds on the work we’ve already done by eliminating interest on student loans here in British Columbia as well — something, again, the students were asking for, for years. Our government listened.

We’re making life more affordable and helping nearly 300,000 families and their kids get a better start through the new child opportunity benefit, which will provide tax-free payments for parents of children under 18. This is an amazing new opportunity. Previous benefits ended when the child was age six. This new child opportunity benefit, again, will give the parents of children up to the age of 18 $1,600 a year for families with one child, up to $2,600 a year for families with two children and up to $3,400 per year for families with three children.

We’re improving health care with more doctors and nurses as well as building health facilities, with 12 new hospitals or major upgrades and 14 new urgent and primary care centres, again, one of them being in my community.

We’ve raised the minimum wage to $14.60 an hour. By 2021, it will reach $15.20. People are starting to see the results with more money in their bank accounts. We’ll continue on a path to making life more affordable for all British Columbians.

I want to talk about child care. This is another area that the previous government ignored. Our government is making sure that quality child care is more affordable and more widely available to families in B.C.

Now, I know the members across the way seem to be really upset about this. We’ve reduced fees at 55,000 public spaces and created more than 10,000 new licensed spaces, and 28,000 families are accessing child care that costs $10 a day or less.

In my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, we’ve invested almost $12 million in child care services. We’ve created 334 spaces, which have been improved, and parents are benefiting from $7.5 million through reduced child care fees and benefits. That’s $7.5 million back in the pockets of families in my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

Child care costs have been reduced by hundreds of dollars each month, and an increasing number of parents are able to participate in the workforce. People can feel confident knowing that their children are receiving high-quality care from early childhood educators.

Our Budget 2020 builds on the progress, with the total investments reaching $2 billion over three years for child care in British Columbia. I just want to repeat that again. Total investments in child care over three years are $2 billion. We’re helping nearly 300,000 families give their kids a better start with the new child opportunity benefit which will provide tax-free payments for parents of children under 18. I’m proud of what our government has done so far to make sure that our child care is there and affordable for every family that needs it.

I want to move on to CleanBC. Our CleanBC climate plan is the leading plan in the country, if not in North America. Our plan is helping us grow a sustainable economy with good jobs and opportunities for people. It’s already working. People have cleaner options for getting around, for heating our homes, for fuelling industries. More communities are investing in clean energy and green building projects.

Our Budget 2020 is adding to that work that’s already been done. We’re adding $400 million to CleanBC to continue these efforts and help people and businesses transition to more efficient low-carbon solutions at home and at work.

For 2½ years, this government has worked in partnership with Indigenous peoples to make progress on reconciliation. Last fall we made history when we enshrined the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act into law.

We’ve made major investments in Indigenous priorities, like language revitalization. We all remember the $50 million investment in language protection for First Nations.

[6:40 p.m.]

We’ve been funding Aboriginal friendship centres and culturally appropriate health care and mental health supports. We funded Indigenous on and off reserve, with one of those housing facilities being funded in my local First Nation, the Katzie.

We’re also working to ensure that Indigenous peoples have the opportunity to enjoy the health and social benefits that come with involvement in sports. More Indigenous athletes and coaches from around B.C. will be able to represent their communities and compete at the 2020 North American Indigenous Games in Halifax thanks to $1.46 million in funding from the province. The investment responds to the Truth and Reconciliation commitments of Canada’s call to action No. 88 that calls on all levels of government to support the games, including funding for provincial team preparation and travel. Our government is happy to do that.

I want to talk about, for a brief moment…. Earlier the members, when we were talking housing, were quite upset about a conversation. We were saying, in discussing our investments into housing…. Budget 2020 continues to support these landmark investments in housing construction and affordability measures.

As part of our ten-year plan, which is Homes for B.C., our government is investing more than $1 billion per year to build more affordable homes for low- and middle-income British Columbians. Again, that’s a $1-billion-a-year investment in housing. We’re already delivering results. More than 23,000 homes for families, seniors and individuals are complete or underway in 90 communities.

Budget 2020 includes funding for new homes, as well as funding….

Interjection.

Hon. L. Beare: Yeah, I am reading that part right here, because it’s really good; $1 billion in housing per year is really good.

Actually, I’m going to go back, because it was actually the member who’s now heckling me who was talking about housing starts earlier. I wouldn’t want to let facts get in the way of the member’s speech, because he was really passionate about it, but the province is on track for 58,000 more starts over five years than under the B.C. Liberal government.

In their 2017 budget, I want to remind the member that the B.C. Liberals projected 26,985 starts in 2020. Well, our budget, unveiled yesterday, projects 35,021. Now, the B.C. Liberals tried this last year with their response to our budget speech. They sold the doom-and-gloom story, but unfortunately for them, in 2019, under our government’s leadership, our investments and our $1-billion-a-year investment in housing, housing starts turned out to have a historic high with 44,932.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Beare: Again, the member is having fun yelling and heckling across the way at this. Like I said, I don’t want to let facts get in the way of his good time. But I’m just going to let the record stand there, Member.

Now, as we talk about investments in delivering infrastructure, including housing, I think it’s really important to talk about making sure that we deliver the services that people need to maintain a strong economy. Budget 2020 makes new capital commitments over three years up to $22.9 billion, which is the highest level in B.C.’s history.

We’ve got work underway, as I mentioned early, on hospitals, on health facilities, on highways, on transit projects, on new housing all throughout our communities. This is stimulating more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction. Our province is continuing to invest in people in this $22.9 billion. I want to take a quick look at it.

[6:45 p.m.]

We’re investing in health. We’re investing $6.4 billion to support new construction projects and upgrade health facilities. This is medical and diagnostic equipment. This is major projects like the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, which are close to my community. It’s the new urgent primary care centre in Maple Ridge that I talked about.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When we look at that $22.9 billion investment, we have to talk about transportation, because $7.4 billion is invested in priority projects. Now, this includes the Pattullo Bridge replacement and the Broadway subway line, the four-laning on Highway 1 through Kicking Horse Canyon. There are just investments all across the province, in Delta, Langley, the southern coast of Vancouver Island, everywhere.

When we talk about education and capital spending, we’re talking about $2.8 billion to maintain, replace, renovate or expand K-to-12 facilities all over our province. Many of these will be new schools. Many of these will be upgraded schools, which will include neighbourhood learning centres and child care spaces, such as my community in Maple Ridge, which will be having the neighbourhood learning centre and child care spaces attached in the new facility, attached to c̓əsqənelə Elementary. By investing in education, we’re ensuring that our students and our staff have safe places to attend school each and every day.

Investments in infrastructure also include $3.1 billion in capacity for post-secondary education. We want to help make the province’s future workforce of tomorrow in key sectors, and we’re making sure we provide the investments to do that.

Now, as we talk about these major investments in capital spending and these major investments in communities, we want to make sure that we’re sharing these opportunities for everyone. So Budget 2020 takes another step forward towards reconciliation with Indigenous people by affirming the historic 25-year revenue-sharing agreement that will see $3 billion of gaming revenue shared with all First Nations. First Nations are already seeing the results. We’ve already seen the cheques go out the door from $250,000 up to $2 million for nations across the province.

Budget 2020 is making sure, as we build…. I talked earlier about that $419 million investment for CleanBC. I want to take a moment to talk about what that investment looks like, because this funding includes incentives for buying electric vehicles and building those EV charging stations. Additionally, our budget increases support for industries moving toward clean and low-carbon solution projects to make B.C. schools, universities, hospitals and colleges more energy-efficient.

Now, as we talk about building infrastructure in K-to-12, in education, we also have to talk about the investments that Budget 2020 delivers, which is an additional $339 million to strengthen B.C.’s K-to-12 education system. That’s building on the recent investments, the school upgrades and the hiring of more than 4,200 new teachers. And we’re going to continue to improve health care in British Columbia as we add an additional $1 billion to that budget.

Noting the time, I’m going to wrap up here, because we’ll all be looking forward to attending a reception this evening with our communities. We have Mayor Jack Crompton here from Whistler, who’s down to talk to us all, from UBCM. I’ll wrap up now by just saying that our budget for British Columbia is balanced in all three years of our fiscal plan. Last year B.C.’s economy was among the top of the provincial gross domestic production growth rate and gains, led the country with the lowest unemployment rate and was among the leaders in employment and growth across Canada.

For so many reasons, I will be so proud to support this budget, to build on the great work that our government has been doing over the past 2½ years, and there’s so much more to come.

With that, I move adjournment of debate.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.